From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 1 05:38:40 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 05:38:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST=3A_Everything_You_Always_Wanted_to?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Know_About_Digital_Trade=2C_but_Didn=E2=80=99t_Get_a_Chance_to?= =?UTF-8?Q?_As?= Message-ID: There is always truth in jest, as at the outset of this session when the question is asked who is the best authority in the Digital Trade arena, and host Susan Aaronson's immediate joke response is "Me!". She now heads the newly established Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub at GWU, and this is one of their first events. ISOC Live posted: "On October 31, 2019 the Elliot School of International Affairs at George Washington University hosted "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Digital Trade, but Didn’t Get a Chance to Ask." Data has become the most traded good and/or service across bo" [image: livestream] On *October 31, 2019* the *Elliot School of International Affairs * at George Washington University hosted "*Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Digital Trade, but Didn’t Get a Chance to Ask. *" Data has become the most traded good and/or service across borders. The American economy is increasingly reliant on digital trade. But the US does not yet participate in any explicit binding digital trade agreements. Meanwhile, many countries have adopted policies that inhibit digital trade, including requirements that data be stored locally or restricting services provided by foreign firms. Such policies not only affect U.S. Internet and technology firms, but the users and small businesses that rely on an open digital environment. There have been lots of panels on digital trade, but this discussion provides an opportunity to better understand why data is governed in trade agreements, what are the barriers to digital trade, and how digital trade rules may affect important policy objectives such as internet openness, the gig economy, innovation, and national security. PANELISTS: *Matthew Reisman*, Microsoft; Meredith Broadbent, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); *Rachael Stelly*, Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA); *Burcu Kilic*, Public Citizen. MODERATOR: *Susan Aaronson*, Professor, GWU and Director, Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub. This event is co-sponsored by the* Institute for International Economic Policy * (IIEP at GWU), the *Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub *, and the *Internet Society DC * (ISOC-DC), in conjunction with the *Computer and Communications Industry Association * (CCIA). It was webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel * (AI captions). *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade * *TWITTER: @IIEPGW #digitaltrade https://priv.sh/XM0Aq6S * *Permalink*: https://isoc.live/11474/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Mon Nov 4 13:01:05 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 11:01:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] CyberBRICS Fellowship Programme 2020 In-Reply-To: <20190912132221.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.f25bb2f29b.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <20191104110105.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.2632c7b717.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all, For those who might be interested, just a friendly reminder that there is only one week left to apply for the 2020 CyberBRICS Fellowsship in Rio de Janeiro. Best Luca --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [governance] CyberBRICS Fellowship Programme 2020 From: LB at lucabelli.net Date: 9/12/19 4:22 pm To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU, 'governance' Cc: 'Luca Belli' Dear colleagues, (apologies for cross-posting) It is a great pleasure to announce the second edition of the CyberBRICS Fellowship Programme to be hosted at FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro. The programme will offer five remunerated fellowships, from February to July 2020, at FGV DIREITO RIO, to support selected scholars having relevant experience in the area related to the activities of the 2020-2021 work plan of the CyberBRICS* project, namely regulation of Internet access and the digitalisation of public administrations in BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Applicants should have relevant experience in at least one of the BRICS countries. The Call for Applications is available at https://cyberbrics.info/call-for-applications-cyberbrics-fellowship-programme/ Selected fellows will be expected to be based in Rio de Janeiro and will have a dedicated office within the FGV main building, in 190 praia de Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro. Further information on the CyberBRICS project can be found at https://cyberbrics.info/ Besides the fellowship programme, we are developing a Network of CyberBRICS Associated Scholars, allowing scholars interested in CyberBRICS activities and having relevant experience in the CyberBRICS avenues of research to cooperate with us. Should you be interested in this latter opportunity, please feel free to send me a personal email. Please feel free to share this message thought your networks. Kind regards Luca *The CyberBRICS Project is developed in partnership with the Higher School of Economics and the Center for New Media and Society (Russia); the Centre for Internet and Society (India); the University of Hong Kong and the Fudan University (China); and Research ICT Africa and the University of Cape Town (South Africa). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 12:11:39 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:11:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] New 2020 MAG members In-Reply-To: <6E6ACA15-831C-40D2-BEBE-C51D163835EA@un.org> References: <6E6ACA15-831C-40D2-BEBE-C51D163835EA@un.org> Message-ID: The list is out! ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 4:55 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] New 2020 MAG members To: IGF Maglist Dear All, Please join me and welcome the new IGF2020 MAG members to list. The full list of the 2020 MAG is here: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2020-members Best regards Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Tue Nov 26 17:10:53 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:10:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <97B43848-B9E3-40D0-9B09-852AA4778C74@post.harvard.edu> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E1F8@MAILBOX04.unam.local> <97B43848-B9E3-40D0-9B09-852AA4778C74@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <24029.41709.870912.656719@gargle.gargle.HOWL> [Not big on extensive quoting...] Democracy generally doesn't do well without a firm commitment to some sort of constitution which enumerates basic rights which cannot be breached (without difficult amendment), a firm commitment to judiciary processes of review including an evolving stare decisis, and specifying how enfranchisement, voting (indirectly or directly), works and is dispositive. Unfortunately the examples I've seen of multi-stakeholder governance lacks these, even seems to eschew the concepts other than specifying a tiny handful of who the (enfranchised) stakeholders shall be. I don't really see how one can call multi-stakeholderism "democracy" other than that the very few who manage to be allowed to the table vote among themselves occasionally, often without transparency or risk of authoritative review. Perhaps in theory multi-stakeholderism could be democratic but one wonders how long it would last as a governance structure if it were. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 23:03:59 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Remmy Nweke (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:03:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Bruna for sharing Congratulations to a big sister of the continent. We are proud of you. ride on. ____ REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] (DigitalSENSE Business News ; ITREALMS , NaijaAgroNet ) Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable * JOIN us!! *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS ) _________________________________________________________________ *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 00:15:13 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:15:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: References: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> Message-ID: I wish someone with the appropriate authority would have the brilliant idea :) of moving the IGF to a week between March and June, as opposed to keeping scheduling it on the verge of winter. Maybe the first proposed agenda item for Anriette and her crew at the MAG? But then again, who cares? My half cent. Mawaki On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 13:56 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Next IGF is in Poland and dates have yet to be confirmed. What we can > start doing is identify themes that we feel the MAG should include in the > IGF at the MAG opening meeting next year. > > But to start preparing now. > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 2:16 pm Arsène Tungali, > wrote: > >> Maybe we will know soon after the opening ceremony which is underway here >> in Berlin >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:04 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >> >>> Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already >>> known? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Charity.G.Embley at ttu.edu Wed Nov 27 00:20:40 2019 From: Charity.G.Embley at ttu.edu (Embley, Charity G) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:20:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: References: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> , Message-ID: The airline tickets on those months would be pricey- that is, if that is a factor to consider. Dr. Charity Embley Sent from my iPhone On Nov 26, 2019, at 11:16 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote:  I wish someone with the appropriate authority would have the brilliant idea :) of moving the IGF to a week between March and June, as opposed to keeping scheduling it on the verge of winter. Maybe the first proposed agenda item for Anriette and her crew at the MAG? But then again, who cares? My half cent. Mawaki On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 13:56 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" > wrote: Next IGF is in Poland and dates have yet to be confirmed. What we can start doing is identify themes that we feel the MAG should include in the IGF at the MAG opening meeting next year. But to start preparing now. On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 2:16 pm Arsène Tungali, > wrote: Maybe we will know soon after the opening ceremony which is underway here in Berlin On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:04 PM Norbert Bollow > wrote: Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already known? Greetings, Norbert --- To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- To unsubscribe: > List help: > --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 01:52:26 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:52:26 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: <4e41e860-0d3c-47cc-82af-e08c1539d52a@avris-iPad> References: <4e41e860-0d3c-47cc-82af-e08c1539d52a@avris-iPad> Message-ID: On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 06:25 avri wrote: > Hi, > > Imagining an IGF that would be ready by May/June is difficult. Would > almost require planing two at the same time. something that is hard to > believe would be possible. > > How about a Southern hemisphere venue on the verge of summer? > Depends on whose summer ;-) but I get your point... Great suggestion by the way. Mawaki > > avri > > > > On Nov 27, 2019 at 06:15, > wrote: > > I wish someone with the appropriate authority would have the brilliant > idea :) of moving the IGF to a week between March and June, as opposed to > keeping scheduling it on the verge of winter. > > Maybe the first proposed agenda item for Anriette and her crew at the MAG? > But then again, who cares? > > My half cent. > > Mawaki > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 13:56 "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Next IGF is in Poland and dates have yet to be confirmed. What we can >> start doing is identify themes that we feel the MAG should include in the >> IGF at the MAG opening meeting next year. >> >> But to start preparing now. >> >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 2:16 pm Arsène Tungali, >> wrote: >> >>> Maybe we will know soon after the opening ceremony which is underway >>> here in Berlin >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:04 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already >>>> known? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 27 03:18:55 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:18:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Many congratulations, Anriette! This is wonderful news! On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 05:04, Remmy Nweke wrote: > Thanks Bruna for sharing > > Congratulations to a big sister of the continent. We are proud of you. > ride on. > ____ > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] > (DigitalSENSE Business News > ; ITREALMS > , NaijaAgroNet > ) > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms > > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria > > > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable > * > JOIN us!! > > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS > ) > _________________________________________________________________ > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and attachments > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is intended > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document and do > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor make > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. > > > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The >> Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen >> of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet >> Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. >> >> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the >> programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 >> members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, >> including representatives of the academic and technical communities. >> >> Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! >> >> --- >> Best, >> Bruna Santos >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 27 03:33:27 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:33:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bruna, all, Thanks for sharing these links. Are other members of the list organising any information sharing or sessions which will discuss this topic at the IGF in Berlin? Access Now mentioned some possible actions on this at our pre-event on Monday...It would be great to get more information if possible at all! Best Sheetal. On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 17:18, Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > As promised, here follows some links about the PIR sell case. > > - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > - > https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191113005661/en/Ethos-Capital-Acquire-Public-Interest-Registry-Internet > - https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ > - > http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/11/23/a-tale-of-icann-and-regulatory-capture-the-dot-org-heist/ > > Just as mentioned yesterday at the meeting and also present at some of the > above posted links, theres an interpretation that ICANN could still > intervened in such deal based on the article 7.5 of the registry base > agreement > signed > with ICANN. > > I know that there has been a few statements on this subject and I believe > the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group at icann was considering issuing a > new one, but thats still something IGC can do if we achieve consensus. > > I promise to follow up with some more links and points on this subject. > > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > > > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos > @boomartins > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 03:37:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 05:37:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks for the follow up, Sheetal! As a heads up, I have just read on twitter that Access Now is organising a meeting at their booth about this issue today, at 12h15 :) "Hey #IGF2019 join the public town hall meeting on the proposed sale of .org tomorrow Wednesday 12.15 in the village (by @accessnow booth) @icann @internetsociety " - https://twitter.com/solomonbrett/status/1199303882993623041 Best, B Le mer. 27 nov. 2019 à 05:33, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > Dear Bruna, all, > > Thanks for sharing these links. > > Are other members of the list organising any information sharing or > sessions which will discuss this topic at the IGF in Berlin? Access Now > mentioned some possible actions on this at our pre-event on Monday...It > would be great to get more information if possible at all! > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 17:18, Bruna Martins dos Santos < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As promised, here follows some links about the PIR sell case. >> >> - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ >> - >> https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191113005661/en/Ethos-Capital-Acquire-Public-Interest-Registry-Internet >> - https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ >> - >> http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/11/23/a-tale-of-icann-and-regulatory-capture-the-dot-org-heist/ >> >> Just as mentioned yesterday at the meeting and also present at some of >> the above posted links, theres an interpretation that ICANN could still >> intervened in such deal based on the article 7.5 of the registry base >> agreement >> signed >> with ICANN. >> >> I know that there has been a few statements on this subject and I believe >> the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group at icann was considering issuing a >> new one, but thats still something IGC can do if we achieve consensus. >> >> I promise to follow up with some more links and points on this subject. >> >> Best, >> Bruna Santos >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >> >> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >> @boomartins >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 03:38:33 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 14:08:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Anriette, it is good progress for the IGF multi-stakeholder process to have you from Civil Society as Chair. Sivasubramanian M On Wed, Nov 27, 2019, 1:49 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Many congratulations, Anriette! This is wonderful news! > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 05:04, Remmy Nweke > wrote: > >> Thanks Bruna for sharing >> >> Congratulations to a big sister of the continent. We are proud of you. >> ride on. >> ____ >> REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >> Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >> DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >> (DigitalSENSE Business News >> ; ITREALMS >> , NaijaAgroNet >> ) >> Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >> M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >> >> Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >> >> >> *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >> * >> JOIN us!! >> >> *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS >> ) >> _________________________________________________________________ >> *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >> attachments are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >> intended only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >> accept legal responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this >> document and do not disclose the contents of this document to any other >> person, nor make any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The >>> Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen >>> of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet >>> Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. >>> >>> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the >>> programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 >>> members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, >>> including representatives of the academic and technical communities. >>> >>> Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! >>> >>> --- >>> Best, >>> Bruna Santos >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 4 15:29:31 2019 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:29:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: As Ian said, in effect, there is a lot to this one ... With appreciation, for the history recounted below. Adding to that history. WSIS quickly became, though supposed to be about the global digital divide, thoroughly consumed with a struggle over who would control the Internet. (Or, 'not control,' at least in the ideology of one side.) Multi-stakeholder was the flag raised to protect the non-governmental innovation by the US from some years before, ICANN. In those earlier Bill Clinton years, this was an artful creation to provide some necessary coordination, beyond the individual nation state. By the time of WSIS, other world powers, both major and emerging, were clear that they too had a stake in the Internet, beyond just the US. At the beginning, in WSIS, the US stood nearly alone arrayed against the rest of the world, joined only by more or less the Five Eyes. In time a coalition would form with much of the Western states. The other view? Alongside major powers, BRICS would emerge. Voice to the other view would regularly come from the Indian delegate of the time. Nothing would be resolved, really, in this struggle. After WSIS, an ugly meeting would see blunt attacks on the ITU and countermoves in response. Further UN meetings would fail to reach any resolution. This was all 15, going on 20, years ago now. The irony in this was the US – whose great gift to the world has been introduction of modern democracy – leading the charge to instate an anti-democratic solution. And, could there – in a global world with a trenchantly cross-border service, the Internet – be global coordination with government decision making? The GAC could have become that. Indeed. Such a 'democratic' approach would be, without any real question, imperfect. But perhaps not as imperfect as the ICANN we got. Where staff regularly ignored results from supposed 'bottoms up' processes, to implement policies preferred instead by management. And some of those management decamped, to business entities where they could personally profit substantially from earlier policy decisions. As noted previously, citizen – civil society – vigorous participation is central to functioning democracy. And, as among others, Ian, has noted, the business sector tends to have outsize influence instead. The demand that civil society be accorded its rightful seat at the table is fundamental, clearly. But, there is an approach, as above, where the full mechanism can also include the essential democratic piece, governments 'in their respective role.' Yes, we (still) have a lot of work to do. David > On Nov 1, 2019, at 10:56 PM, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Ian, David, Tamir: > Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. > > We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. > > In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, they believed, based on classic, 19thcentury concepts of territorial sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role of civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had something to do with local communities. > > The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true of those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. > > WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document written entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had different “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could discuss – but _not_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” > > The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role of governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in things like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private sector as influential as governments. > > Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on any rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully integrated with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system such as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten the global compatibility of the internet. > > The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. > > Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or “equal footing” is needed or works at the _national_ level kind of misses the point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking place) around _global_ internet governance. Of course at the national level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power sharing arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is because there is no global sovereign. > > These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: > > https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd > > > > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net > On Behalf Of david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu > Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM > To: governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? > > How about "in their respective roles"? > > David > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". > > Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? > > Ian > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 04:15:03 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael ILISHEBO (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:15:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: References: <4e41e860-0d3c-47cc-82af-e08c1539d52a@avris-iPad> Message-ID: 2020 IGF takes place from 02 - 06 th November, 2010 in Poland -- *Michael L. Ilishebo,* *Lusaka, Zambia* *Digital Forensic Analyst -* Zambia Police Service* | * *UN IGF MAG Member ( 2017 -19) | AU IGF MAG Member (2019 - 20)* *ICANN* GAC PSWG Member * | **ICANN *Fellow/Mentor |* Alumni - *African School on Internet Governance (2014) Work Email : * ilishebomichael at zambiapolice.org.zm * Contact* : +260965361255* *Social Media Handles* *Twitter: @ilishebo* *Skype: michael.ilishebo* *"walk a mile,for a while,with a smile"* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Nov 27 05:22:38 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:22:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I hope that we may be able to unite to ask that ISOC reconsider this sale. While I am not confident ISOC will listen - if anything, this sale has directed my attention to very serious deficiencies in the governance structure of ISOC - I think it is important that our concerns are noted. This sale runs contrary to the values that ISOC is supposed to represent, will result in further consolidation in the DNS industry (just as ISOC has released work warning of the dangers of consolidation), and will see a monopoly, administered by a trusted non-profit, fall into private hands to exploit for personal gain. It's completely unacceptable. The Register [reports today](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/27/isoc_icann_dot_org_vint_cerf/) that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in ISOC, and I think such unscrupulous behavior calls for a response from us. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 09:37, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: > thanks for the follow up, Sheetal! > > As a heads up, I have just read on twitter that Access Now is organising a meeting at their booth about this issue today, at 12h15 :) > > "Hey [#IGF2019](https://twitter.com/hashtag/IGF2019?src=hashtag_click) join the public town hall meeting on the proposed sale of .org tomorrow Wednesday 12.15 in the village (by > [@accessnow](https://twitter.com/accessnow) > booth) > [@icann](https://twitter.com/ICANN) > > [@internetsociety](https://twitter.com/internetsociety)" - https://twitter.com/solomonbrett/status/1199303882993623041 > > Best, > B > > Le mer. 27 nov. 2019 à 05:33, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > >> Dear Bruna, all, >> >> Thanks for sharing these links. >> >> Are other members of the list organising any information sharing or sessions which will discuss this topic at the IGF in Berlin? Access Now mentioned some possible actions on this at our pre-event on Monday...It would be great to get more information if possible at all! >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 17:18, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As promised, here follows some links about the PIR sell case. >>> >>> - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ >>> - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191113005661/en/Ethos-Capital-Acquire-Public-Interest-Registry-Internet >>> - https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ >>> - http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/11/23/a-tale-of-icann-and-regulatory-capture-the-dot-org-heist/ >>> >>> Just as mentioned yesterday at the meeting and also present at some of the above posted links, theres an interpretation that ICANN could still intervened in such deal based on the article 7.5 of the [registry base agreement](https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-31jul17-en.pdf) signed with ICANN. >>> >>> I know that there has been a few statements on this subject and I believe the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group at icann was considering issuing a new one, but thats still something IGC can do if we achieve consensus. >>> >>> I promise to follow up with some more links and points on this subject. >>> >>> Best, >>> Bruna Santos >>> >>> -- >>> Bruna Martins dos Santos >>> >>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>> @boomartins >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > -- > Bruna Martins dos Santos > > Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos > @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Wed Nov 27 05:26:14 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:26:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > The Register reports today that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in ISOC. And are you considering counter-arguments? Because I haven’t heard any consideration of them here. Just one-sided monologue, which isn’t a way to develop a considered or informed position. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Nov 27 05:29:17 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:29:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] ISOC/PIR case for .ORG sale - more transparency required Message-ID: I am forwarding the below email, without attribution, as it was posted to a private mailing list and I have not yet been able to make contact with the sender to ask if I may share it here with their name attached. However, I think their suggested path forward is a very good one, and this may be something we could call for in order to increase our understanding of the PIR sale. Please see below. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline > While secrecy during commercial negotiation is reasonable, this is not a > commercial deal: it involves a charity, and a key functional cornerstone > of the Internet. I am truly amazed that Ethos has not permitted ISOC and > PIR to release internal discussions, reports, meeting minutes, analysis, > briefings and email in full to indicate to the world at large that > nothing nefarious has been going on. Yes, that would include releasing > confidential Ethos strategic business information but Ethos is a vehicle > apparently created specifically for this deal and has nothing to lose if > it avoids the deal being blocked, or rendered null by mass protests and > migration to another TLD. > > Given the scale of the pushback, the fact that Ethos and ISOC are > unwilling to just release the internal emails is the strongest indicator > to the world at large that there is, indeed, "some sort of nefarious > deal going on". I call upon the Board to instruct you to tell Ethos that > the deal is off unless they agree to you releasing all your and their > confidential information about the deal. If you cannot call the deal > off, then tell them you will actively disclaim it and campaign for it to > be blocked by a competent authority. > From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Nov 27 05:32:32 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:32:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> Message-ID: <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> Dear Bill, Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com wrote: > > The Register reports today that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in ISOC. > > And are you considering counter-arguments? Because I haven’t heard any consideration of them here. Just one-sided monologue, which isn’t a way to develop a considered or informed position. > > -Bill From woody at pch.net Wed Nov 27 05:57:47 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:57:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <05398085-DFA8-43DA-BF67-6D51C35B3164@pch.net> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional Has someone argued that? If so, can you quote that argument, or articulate it? > and more-stable funding. If by “more stable” you mean “without strings attached” or “not contingent upon compliant behavior,” then yes. “More stable” would certainly not be my first choice of phrase to articulate the argument, though. > Is there another one? That it will deconflict ISOC, and allow it to apply itself to issues of interest to the Internet community. That is, of course, a potential, not a guaranteed outcome. But it’s certainly better than the status-quo. > I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. Because you don’t think the outcome is desirable, or because you don’t think that it will come to pass? > ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community Can you articulate the specific harm that you believe will come to pass? > for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC You’re anthropomorphizing. Which does not constitute an argument. As well, ISOC is, nominally, a public-benefit corporation. In theory it has no “private” interest. The problem, historically, has been in the definition of “public.” Also, you seem to be implying that this would make ISOC “wealthy” or give them “additional funds.” While that’s possible, I haven’t seen anyone argue that, or substantiate that. The question has not be _amount_ of funds, but of _restriction_ of funds. The goal here is not to give ISOC _more_ money, but to give it money which is not _preconditioned_. > ...and not the Internet community as a whole. You appear, however, to be comparing to a theoretical perfect case, rather than to the status quo. I’d prefer to see improvement relative to the status quo, even if it does not reach a state of theoretical perfection. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From milton at gatech.edu Wed Nov 27 07:22:28 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:22:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: A link to the blog post from Internet Governance Project (IGP) on the .ORG sale, which proposes come constructive changes: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy Internet Governance Project ----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 5:33 AM To: Bill Woodcock Cc: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com; Sheetal Kumar ; governance Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell Dear Bill, Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com wrote: > > The Register reports today that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in ISOC. > > And are you considering counter-arguments? Because I haven’t heard any consideration of them here. Just one-sided monologue, which isn’t a way to develop a considered or informed position. > > -Bill From woody at pch.net Wed Nov 27 09:35:31 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 15:35:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88DFD63E-C1A6-4EE0-9577-339F5C3BF3E1@pch.net> I may surprise many by saying that I find Milton’s analysis to be the most cogent and to-the-point thus far. Outcomes are what matter, not whose idea it was or who was in the room. Milton focuses on outcomes, and I agree that do Mainers are the only ones actually hardened here, and that’s fine with me. One very small correction though... PIR is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISOC (though I thought that as well up until I looked into it last week). Instead, they’re each independently incorporated as non-profits, with the ISOC board seating the PIR board. That is, the “membership” of PIR is the ISOC board. -Bill > On Nov 27, 2019, at 13:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > A link to the blog post from Internet Governance Project (IGP) on the .ORG sale, which proposes come constructive changes: > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > Georgia Institute of Technology > School of Public Policy > Internet Governance Project > > > ----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 5:33 AM > To: Bill Woodcock > Cc: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com; Sheetal Kumar ; governance > Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell > > Dear Bill, > > Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:26, Bill Woodcock wrote: >> >> >> >>>> On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com wrote: >>> The Register reports today that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in ISOC. >> >> And are you considering counter-arguments? Because I haven’t heard any consideration of them here. Just one-sided monologue, which isn’t a way to develop a considered or informed position. >> >> -Bill > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 09:46:58 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael ILISHEBO (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 16:46:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations to Annriette on her selection as MAG Chair. I wish to thank Lynn for her tremendous leadership in the.last 4 years -- *Michael L. Ilishebo,* *Lusaka, Zambia* *Digital Forensic Analyst -* Zambia Police Service* | * *UN IGF MAG Member ( 2017 -19) | AU IGF MAG Member (2019 - 20)* *ICANN* GAC PSWG Member * | **ICANN *Fellow/Mentor |* Alumni - *African School on Internet Governance (2014) Work Email : * ilishebomichael at zambiapolice.org.zm * Contact* : +260965361255* *Social Media Handles* *Twitter: @ilishebo* *Skype: michael.ilishebo* *"walk a mile,for a while,with a smile"* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 27 12:05:48 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Corinne Cath (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 20:05:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <88DFD63E-C1A6-4EE0-9577-339F5C3BF3E1@pch.net> References: <88DFD63E-C1A6-4EE0-9577-339F5C3BF3E1@pch.net> Message-ID: Hi, Imho framing this as an either/or agenda (either we’re “practical” about outcomes or we care about who was in the room) is not the way to go. I think we can appreciate the call to action by Milton (and others) and at the same time raise some critical questions about how this deal came about. We might learn some interesting things about the latter that will support the former. Or, to invoke an Americanism I hear (all too) often in these debates: we can chew gum and walk at the same time. Kind regards, -- Corinne Cath - Speth Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com Twitter: @C_CS On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 15:36, Bill Woodcock wrote: > I may surprise many by saying that I find Milton’s analysis to be the most > cogent and to-the-point thus far. Outcomes are what matter, not whose idea > it was or who was in the room. Milton focuses on outcomes, and I agree that > do Mainers are the only ones actually hardened here, and that’s fine with > me. > > One very small correction though... PIR is not a wholly-owned subsidiary > of ISOC (though I thought that as well up until I looked into it last > week). Instead, they’re each independently incorporated as non-profits, > with the ISOC board seating the PIR board. That is, the “membership” of PIR > is the ISOC board. > > -Bill > > > > On Nov 27, 2019, at 13:23, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > > > A link to the blog post from Internet Governance Project (IGP) on the > .ORG sale, which proposes come constructive changes: > > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ > > > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > > Georgia Institute of Technology > > School of Public Policy > > Internet Governance Project > > > > > > ----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline > > Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 5:33 AM > > To: Bill Woodcock > > Cc: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com; Sheetal Kumar ; > governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell > > > > Dear Bill, > > > > Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will > provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? > I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the > non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in > the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden Férdeline > > > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > >> On Wednesday, 27 November 2019 11:26, Bill Woodcock > wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>> On Nov 27, 2019, at 11:22 AM, Ayden Férdeline ayden at ferdeline.com > wrote: > >>> The Register reports today that "both ISOC and ICANN are driving the > sale forward as fast as possible in the background and refusing to consider > counter-arguments until it’s done". I could not be more disappointed in > ISOC. > >> > >> And are you considering counter-arguments? Because I haven’t heard any > consideration of them here. Just one-sided monologue, which isn’t a way to > develop a considered or informed position. > >> > >> -Bill > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Corinne Cath - Speth Ph.D. Candidate, Oxford Internet Institute & Alan Turing Institute Web: www.oii.ox.ac.uk/people/corinne-cath Email: ccath at turing.ac.uk & corinnecath at gmail.com Twitter: @C_CS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Nov 4 16:14:54 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:14:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <19920caf-307b-34cb-05ed-d5e44b342a04@gih.com> References: <19920caf-307b-34cb-05ed-d5e44b342a04@gih.com> Message-ID: In Trinidad & Tobago we have the Trinidad & Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group, formally launched in July 2017. See http://mag.tt/ for details and the following for some additional insight: http://www.mpac.gov.tt/media-releases/ICT%20is%20the%20New%20Economic%20Driver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S6KChODydE&list=PLZ1oqPldpvO0Ir9Ze8QlpKEwfYv3b5YeR Rgds, Tracy On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 8:27 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Ian, > > in the UK, DCMS (Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sports) > regularly hosts the MAGIG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group on Internet > Governance) meetings bringing stakeholders together - in two groups, one > focussing on ICANN issues and one focussing primarily on ITU and IGF issues. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 29/10/2019 20:42, Ian Peter wrote: > > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have > reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private > sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of > the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". > > Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago > we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. > What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? > > Ian > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Wed Nov 27 12:19:12 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 18:19:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <88DFD63E-C1A6-4EE0-9577-339F5C3BF3E1@pch.net> Message-ID: <5E989B71-0201-40BE-B129-94AC89022623@pch.net> > On Nov 27, 2019, at 6:05 PM, Corinne Cath (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Imho framing this as an either/or agenda (either we’re “practical” about outcomes or we care about who was in the room) is not the way to go. That’s quite true, but it’s a straw-man relative to this conversation, as it has no bearing on what I said. I said that one thing mattered, and the other didn’t. Deals arise. Some make it to the table. What matters is whether they’re beneficial or not. Whether they bear executing or not. Who was in the room at what point prior to the deal being put on the table is _utterly irrelevant_. If you don’t like that deal, you can contribute constructively by critiquing the deal. If you have a better deal to offer, you can do so. “Not invented here” has always been a particularly useless criticism. If you don’t like the fact that ICANN, which is supposed to be a transparent and neutral governance organization, was in the middle of a bunch of insider self-dealing, that’s a separate question from whether this deal should proceed. Penalizing ISOC and the Internet users who would benefit from its improvement in order to punish the ICANN of today for self-dealing by ICANN executives of the past is ineffectual, short-sighted, and a distraction from both the issues and opportunity at hand. The status-quo is bad. ISOC going away is unlikely to happen. Thus, it seems to me to be a reasonably high priority to attempt to reform it. Deconflicting it is certainly the single largest step that can be taken in that direction. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From bzs at theworld.com Wed Nov 27 21:53:58 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 21:53:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> On November 27, 2019 at 10:32 ayden at ferdeline.com (Ayden Férdeline) wrote: > Dear Bill, > > Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. Here's a counter-argument: .ORG, and the vast majority of other TLDs (including the 1,000+ new gTLDs), don't actually mean anything. There are a small handful of exceptions and most of those are just self-imposed by some idealistic registry. Most any could change tomorrow and just begin selling SLDs to anyone with $15 or whatever. When was the last time someone was refused a .ORG registration because they weren't actually a non-profit or whatever? 1990? ... I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each. I do not think that they will sing to me. I have seen them riding seaward on the waves Combing the white hair of the waves blown back When the wind blows the water white and black. We have lingered in the chambers of the sea By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown Till human voices wake us, and we drown. - from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock", T.S. Eliot -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From bzs at theworld.com Wed Nov 27 22:10:22 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2019 22:10:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <24031.15006.186170.714179@gargle.gargle.HOWL> On November 27, 2019 at 12:22 milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) wrote: > A link to the blog post from Internet Governance Project (IGP) on the .ORG sale, which proposes come constructive changes: > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ A worthwhile read. I'm not sure it's the whole story, but what it does say is worthwhile. > Dr. Milton L Mueller > Georgia Institute of Technology > School of Public Policy > Internet Governance Project -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 04:10:30 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:10:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> > On Nov 28, 2019, at 3:53 AM, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > > > On November 27, 2019 at 10:32 ayden at ferdeline.com (Ayden Férdeline) wrote: >> Dear Bill, >> >> Yes, I have heard the counter argument, which is that this sale will provide ISOC with additional and more-stable funding. Is there another one? I'm afraid I don't find it persuasive. ISOC is proposing to sell out the non-commercial community for its own private greed. A wealthy ISOC is in the interests of ISOC, and not the Internet community as a whole. > > Here's a counter-argument: > > .ORG, and the vast majority of other TLDs (including the 1,000+ new > gTLDs), don't actually mean anything. > > There are a small handful of exceptions and most of those are just > self-imposed by some idealistic registry. Most any could change > tomorrow and just begin selling SLDs to anyone with $15 or whatever. Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand. There are plenty of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a domain from one of the free TLDs (not the surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). I just don’t see a couple of dollars a year as a substantial threat. It would be great if people would spend a couple of dollars a year on Internet infrastructure, but having it go to ISOC to fund Internet governance workshops and so forth is also good. And a little bit of that would go to the IETF, would be great. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 28 07:24:27 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:24:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> Message-ID: <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:10:30 +0100 Bill Woodcock wrote: > Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand. There are plenty > of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that > really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a > domain from one of the free TLDs (not the > surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine that $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that would prevent price differentiation with “value based pricing” where the registry would charge organizations in accordance to the value that (as unilaterally decided by the newly profit-oriented registry) the registrant organization derives from its continued ability to use the domain, so that if the registry believes that your organization can afford that, it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? The cost of changing your domain name (without also keeping the old domain name and setting up redirects) includes loss of all incoming links which you are not able to get updated. If you have a lot of incoming links, and you care about not breaking them, the cost of not renewing your domain name (because it has become either more expensive than what you think you can afford, or because a prince hike is in your view abusive in the sense that it and/or its circumstances make you angry and the decision to not renew the domain name is made for such a reason) needs to be calculated to include to cost of the hours (either provided by volunteers or by paid staff) that will be required for working on addressing the issue of incoming links. That is the perspective of the concerned organization. We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who will get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to content provided by them. Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed to break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org etc etc? Greetings, Norbert From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Nov 28 07:42:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (chlebrum (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:42:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> Message-ID: One solution —> go to OPEN-ROOT system 😇👍🏻 www.open-root.eu Chantal LEBRUMENT > Le 28 nov. 2019 à 13:24, Norbert Bollow a écrit : > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:10:30 +0100 > Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand. There are plenty >> of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that >> really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a >> domain from one of the free TLDs (not the >> surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). > > What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only > increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? > > Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine that > $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” > [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that would > prevent price differentiation with “value based pricing” where the > registry would charge organizations in accordance to the value that > (as unilaterally decided by the newly profit-oriented registry) the > registrant organization derives from its continued ability to use the > domain, so that if the registry believes that your organization can > afford that, it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? > > The cost of changing your domain name (without also keeping the old > domain name and setting up redirects) includes loss of all incoming > links which you are not able to get updated. > > If you have a lot of incoming links, and you care about not breaking > them, the cost of not renewing your domain name (because it has become > either more expensive than what you think you can afford, or because > a prince hike is in your view abusive in the sense that it and/or its > circumstances make you angry and the decision to not renew the domain > name is made for such a reason) needs to be calculated to include to > cost of the hours (either provided by volunteers or by paid staff) that > will be required for working on addressing the issue of incoming links. > > That is the perspective of the concerned organization. > > We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who will > get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to content > provided by them. > > Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed to > break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org etc etc? > > Greetings, > Norbert > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: From suresh at hserus.net Thu Nov 28 07:43:59 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 18:13:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> Message-ID: <0CD89665-5848-4FD4-B1EF-1AEC31554489@hserus.net> That was and remains a technically unsound thought experiment, I'm afraid. On 28/11/19, 6:13 PM, "chlebrum (via governance Mailing List)" wrote: One solution —> go to OPEN-ROOT system 😇👍🏻 www.open-root.eu Chantal LEBRUMENT From aelsadr at egyptig.org Thu Nov 28 07:53:07 2019 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:53:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> Message-ID: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> Hi, Comments in-line below: > On Nov 28, 2019, at 2:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:10:30 +0100 > Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand. There are plenty >> of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that >> really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a >> domain from one of the free TLDs (not the >> surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). > > What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only > increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? > > Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine that > $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” > [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > The question about potential increases in the price of .org registrations are addressed here: https://www.keypointsabout.org > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that would > prevent price differentiation with “value based pricing” where the > registry would charge organizations in accordance to the value that > (as unilaterally decided by the newly profit-oriented registry) the > registrant organization derives from its continued ability to use the > domain, so that if the registry believes that your organization can > afford that, it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? Yes, there is something in the .org Registry Agreement (rules) that prevents this. Specifically, Article 2.10(c), which says: > “ In addition, Registry Operator must have uniform pricing for renewals of domain name registrations (“Renewal Pricing”). For the purposes of determining Renewal Pricing, the price for each domain registration renewal must be identical to the price of all other domain name registration renewals in place at the time of such renewal, and such price must take into account universal application of any refunds, rebates, discounts, product tying or other programs in place at the time of renewal. The foregoing requirements of this Section 2.10(c) shall not apply for (i) purposes of determining Renewal Pricing if the registrar has provided Registry Operator with documentation that demonstrates that the applicable registrant expressly agreed in its registration agreement with registrar to higher Renewal Pricing at the time of the initial registration of the domain name following clear and conspicuous disclosure of such Renewal Pricing to such registrant, and (ii) discounted Renewal Pricing pursuant to a Qualified Marketing Program (as defined below). The parties acknowledge that the purpose of this Section 2.10(c) is to prohibit abusive and/or discriminatory Renewal Pricing practices imposed by Registry Operator without the written consent of the applicable registrant at the time of the initial registration of the domain and this Section 2.10(c) will be interpreted broadly to prohibit such practices. For purposes of this Section 2.10(c), a “Qualified Marketing Program” is a marketing program pursuant to which Registry Operator offers discounted Renewal Pricing, provided that each of the following criteria is satisfied: (i) the program and related discounts are offered for a period of time not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) calendar days (with consecutive substantially similar programs aggregated for purposes of determining the number of calendar days of the program), (ii) all ICANN accredited registrars are provided the same opportunity to qualify for such discounted Renewal Pricing; and (iii) the intent or effect of the program is not to exclude any particular class(es) of registrations (e.g., registrations held by large corporations) or increase the renewal price of any particular class(es) of registrations. Nothing in this Section 2.10(c) shall limit Registry Operator’s obligations pursuant to Section 2.10(b).” I hope this helps. Thanks. Amr -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 28 08:57:13 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:57:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:53:07 +0200 Amr Elsadr wrote: > On Nov 28, 2019, at 2:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine > > that $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” > > [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > > The question about potential increases in the price of .org > registrations are addressed here: https://www.keypointsabout.org > > > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that > > would prevent price differentiation [...] > Yes, there is something in the .org Registry Agreement > > (rules) that prevents this. Specifically, Article 2.10(c), which says: > [..] > > I hope this helps. Thank you, yes. So it seems that the new owners of .org plan to hike the .org domain prices relatively slowly, and they are required to do it uniformly. They probably hope to avoid, as much as possible, any single major shitstorm - while still maximizing their profits (by means of taking the money from nonprofits which are to a large part funded by donations). Greetings, Norbert From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Nov 28 10:22:27 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:22:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> Message-ID: Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these dicsussions on impact. On 28.11.19, 14:57, "governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of Norbert Bollow" wrote: On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:53:07 +0200 Amr Elsadr wrote: > On Nov 28, 2019, at 2:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine > > that $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” > > [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > > The question about potential increases in the price of .org > registrations are addressed here: https://www.keypointsabout.org > > > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that > > would prevent price differentiation [...] > Yes, there is something in the .org Registry Agreement > > (rules) that prevents this. Specifically, Article 2.10(c), which says: > [..] > > I hope this helps. Thank you, yes. So it seems that the new owners of .org plan to hike the .org domain prices relatively slowly, and they are required to do it uniformly. They probably hope to avoid, as much as possible, any single major shitstorm - while still maximizing their profits (by means of taking the money from nonprofits which are to a large part funded by donations). Greetings, Norbert From tisrael at cippic.ca Mon Nov 4 17:24:04 2019 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 17:24:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca> Hi all, I would just second what a number of folks have said, which is that while I respect and appreciate the historical origins, I think there are national contexts in which multi-stakeholder Internet policy making can be both appropriate and legitimate. Certainly the cross-territorial nature of the Internet is one of the earliest and most enduring challenges to coordinated policy-making in this space, and multi-stakeholder policy making is an important component in trying to address that, but there are other recurring challenges such as the need for flexible policies that don't necessarily align 100% with current law or should not be applied with the rigour of law, or where the technical nature of the problem requires more nuanced engagement than you can get in some traditional government-led settings. I would say the same for the 'in their respective roles' vs 'on equal footing' debate.... There's certainly going to be situations where you need a government(s) led process, particularly where implementation relies on entities voluntarily adopting measures that are counter to their own interests (which is something ICANN has at least made an attempt to get around). But in other contexts, having a venue where government actors can provide the government perspective but not have the last say can also lead to effective and legitimate outcomes, including at the national level. I think it's an enduring irony that in these contexts it's still civil society, rather than governments, who often ends up representing individual interests most aggressively, but that does still seem to be the prevailing tendency.... Best, Tamir On 2019-11-03 8:13 p.m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Hi, > > you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance > in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdfhttps://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf  > p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like > sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, > responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across > issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the > conclusions,  > > "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity > of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other > factors, the “bindingness” of the agreements. Organizations such as > ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players > who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be > binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, > require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and > potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with > their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the > Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG > may operate with simpler rule books.  > > The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied > internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The > more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the > less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they > will have available for their core function." > > A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears > and Kasper have a nice paper > out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development > https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development which > applies to the national level.  > > It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the > technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more > or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation > (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet > principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both > recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do > business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict > separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with > governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations > that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades.  > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > >   > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >   > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net > [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Ian Peter > [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > *Enviado el:* domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12 > *Hasta:* governance > *Asunto:* Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder > policy development at a national level? > > Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. > > I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in > that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where > presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to > the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. > > Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a > national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be > great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for > civil society involvement, that  people could use to suggest to their > governments effective ways of doing things. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Andrés Piazza" > > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com > Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com ; "Izumi Aizu" > >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" > >; "CWCS (IGC)" > > > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > development at a national level? > >> Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still >> wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other >> stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative >> BFA.AR   >> >> Andrés >> >> El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali >> (>) >> escribió: >> >> Hi all, >> >> This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. >> >> In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process >> but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and >> send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even >> possible for most civil society groups to come together and work >> on an >> input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. >> >> Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together >> last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion >> at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how >> we did this: >> https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ >> >> But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken >> more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby >> legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit >> more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure >> their >> inputs are being taken seriously. >> >> Hope this is helpful. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >> >: >> > Ian, >> > >> > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are >> rather slow to >> > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good >> signs of a good >> > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly >> and far more >> > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but >> general National >> > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems >> > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left >> unresolved over >> > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to >> impress upon >> > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the >> Community do to >> > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the >> > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? >> > >> > Sivasubramanian M >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > > wrote: >> > >> >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> >> PrepCom >> >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when >> South >> >>  Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold >> reform, say >> >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there >> don’t want >> >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very >> stake they >> >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil >> society. It’s >> >> been >> >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8.  >> Aging problem >> >> indeed. >> >> >> >> Izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) > >: >> >> >> >>> Hi all. >> >>> >> >>> Chipping in…. >> >>> >> >>> “in their respective roles” >> >>> >> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. >> Inserting “in >> >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a >> role. From one >> >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being >> recognised >> >>> as >> >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >> >>> >> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all >> stakeholders could >> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >> >>> >> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any >> attempt to >> >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF >> mandate >> >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business >> stakeholders in >> >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best >> practice fora but >> >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >> >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >> >>> >> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that >> might have >> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and >> the private >> >>> sector in internet related policy development, >> >>> >> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >> >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by >> Lyndall >> >>> Shope-Mafole , then >> >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information >> Society and >> >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >> >>> someone >> >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect >> policy. She said >> >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you >> must keep >> >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore >> Government >> >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the >> passenger >> >>> sitting >> >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response >> was: you >> >>> work >> >>> for the government?) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its >> business model >> >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >> >>> demanding >> >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the >> Singapore Chapter >> >>> of >> >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >> >>> >> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >> >>> calling >> >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next >> cases,  Queen of >> >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell >> Crowe), did >> >>> the >> >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >> >>> >> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >> >>> >> *. >> >>> The court threw out the two cases >> >>> >> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for >> the op-ed and >> >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the >> op-ed, we had >> >>> a >> >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *From: *> > on behalf of "Mueller, >> >>> Milton L" > >> >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > > >> >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >> >>> *To: *governance > > >> >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of >> muiltistakeholder policy >> >>> development at a national level? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >> >>> >> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which >> concepts such as >> >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global >> internet >> >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right >> exclusively, >> >>> they >> >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >> >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the >> roles for >> >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled >> out. Private >> >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, >> and the role >> >>> of >> >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >> >>> something >> >>> to do with local communities. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other >> hand, wanted >> >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was >> particularly true >> >>> of >> >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >> >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the >> final say in >> >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory >> capacity. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which >> multistakeholder >> >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a >> document >> >>> written >> >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >> >>> different >> >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all >> stakeholders >> >>> could >> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective >> roles” never >> >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, >> strengthening the role >> >>> of >> >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status >> that the WSIS >> >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of >> ICANN, in >> >>> things >> >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the >> private >> >>> sector >> >>> as influential as governments. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it >> governs is >> >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet >> governance does >> >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >> >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments >> cannot agree on >> >>> any >> >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >> >>> integrated >> >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot >> of the de >> >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a >> globalized system >> >>> such >> >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, >> would threaten >> >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder >> governance, in >> >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is >> necessary for >> >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. >> Multistakeholder >> >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial >> governance. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder >> governance” or >> >>> “equal >> >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of >> misses the >> >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is >> still taking >> >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at >> the national >> >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >> >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the >> framework of >> >>> traditional national governance.  And in democratic >> societies, there are >> >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and >> power >> >>> sharing >> >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the >> decider at the >> >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for >> global IG is >> >>> because there is no global sovereign. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I >> organized >> >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and >> themes here: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net >> < >> >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net >> > *On Behalf Of * >> >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >> >> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >> >>> *To:* governance > > >> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of >> muiltistakeholder policy >> >>> development at a national level? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> David >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter >> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that >> might have >> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and >> the private >> >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the >> lines perhaps >> >>> of >> >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A >> few years ago >> >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government >> changed >> >>> that. >> >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian >> >>> >> >>> --- >> >>> To unsubscribe: > >> >>> > >> >> >>> List help: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> --- >> >>> To unsubscribe: > > >> >>> List help: >> >>> >> >> -- >> >>                      >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> >> Japan >> >> www.anr.org >> >> --- >> >> To unsubscribe: > > >> >> List help: >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali* * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >> < >> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >> Member. UN IGF MAG >> Member >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> *Andrés Piazza* >> @andrespiazza > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: --  Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5 ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914 Fax: +1 613-562-5417 PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 *♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel?* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu Nov 28 10:34:23 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 16:34:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> Message-ID: On 11/28/19 4:22 PM, James Gannon wrote: > Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these dicsussions on impact. Even if this were true (source?), this should be offset against the size of the not-for-profit vs for-profit .org websites in terms of visitors (think wikipedia.org, mozilla.org, etc). Best, Niels > > On 28.11.19, 14:57, "governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of Norbert Bollow" wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 14:53:07 +0200 > Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > On Nov 28, 2019, at 2:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Vint Cerf has been quoted [0] with the statement, “Hard to imagine > > > that $60/year would be a deal breaker for even small non-profits.” > > > [0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ > > > > The question about potential increases in the price of .org > > registrations are addressed here: https://www.keypointsabout.org > > > > > > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that > > > would prevent price differentiation [...] > > Yes, there is something in the .org Registry Agreement > > > > (rules) that prevents this. Specifically, Article 2.10(c), which says: > > [..] > > > > I hope this helps. > > Thank you, yes. So it seems that the new owners of .org plan to hike > the .org domain prices relatively slowly, and they are required to do > it uniformly. They probably hope to avoid, as much as possible, any > single major shitstorm - while still maximizing their profits (by means > of taking the money from nonprofits which are to a large part funded by > donations). > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Nov 28 11:11:17 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 17:11:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> Message-ID: <20191128171117.7dc4ef19@quill> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:22:27 +0000 James Gannon wrote: > Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a > statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org > registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these > dicsussions on impact. I'm not sure whether that statistic is as meaningful as it might appear to be at first glance. For example, using a .org domain name used to be considered the most appropriate domain name choice in (at least parts of) the Free Software community for "free software projects". Only the biggest / most successful of these communities would ever formally establish a legal entity around the "project", so most of these communities would not be counted with those "less than 1%". I would tend to think that the part of the impact that really matters is the impact on (formal and informal) non-profit organizations and initiatives etc., since that's where the intended purpose of carving out the .org domain space was. Of course, yes, there are others who registered .org domains for commercial or personal purposes, etc., without in any way thereby intending to put distance between what they were doing and the realm of profit-centric activities, and without putting particular trust in ISOC and/or in any of the various specific promises that had been made around .org In my view, the problem is not only about the purely financial aspects. The feelings of betrayal may be more significant and important. I would suggest that a very central aspect of human dignity, to which engagement in not-for-profit activities is very often tied, has been violated by ISOC's decision. Greetings, Norbert From icggov at johnlevine.com Thu Nov 28 12:30:36 2019 From: icggov at johnlevine.com (John Levine) Date: 28 Nov 2019 12:30:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20191128173037.161F2FDF8D3@ary.qy> In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On 11/28/19 4:22 PM, James Gannon wrote: >> Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that >less than 1% of .org registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these dicsussions on impact. > >Even if this were true (source?), this should be offset against the size of the not-for-profit vs for-profit .org >websites in terms of visitors (think wikipedia.org, mozilla.org, etc). We extrapolated from some older numbers. I'm pretty sure there are far more parked names than active non-profits in .ORG. That's one of the reasons we made a deal with a buyer who is committed to running .ORG the way it's run now -- to stay healthy it needs to stay attractive to all of the people who use it, not just the NGOs. For comparison, the .NGO and .ONG domains which require registrants to show that they are non-profits only have about 3,000 names. This is also why I'm baffled by claims that the buyer will increase the price by some absurd factor. If they did, the non-core registrants would leave and the registry would collapse. That's obvious to anyone familiar with the domain business so of course they won't do that. I don't understand why it's not obvious to everyone else. With respect to complaints that increasing the price from $10 to $12 would be a hardship, I'm trying to find a non-profit (or anyone) who is paying for a domain and has any operations at all, yet is so strapped that $12/yr rather than $10 would be a crisis. That's not even the price of a cup of bad coffee. For the $10 or $12 they're getting a registry with a skilled staff keeping it working reliably and also maintaining its quality. R's, John From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu Nov 28 12:42:30 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 18:42:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128171117.7dc4ef19@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <20191128171117.7dc4ef19@quill> Message-ID: <91041ee4-7573-a25b-bb1b-dfa33d6ae9f1@digitaldissidents.org> I (also) wrote a blog about it: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hri/private-equity-firm-procures-org-internet-society-or-how-public-interest-got-sold-out-again/ On 11/28/19 5:11 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:22:27 +0000 > James Gannon wrote: > >> Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a >> statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org >> registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these >> dicsussions on impact. > > I'm not sure whether that statistic is as meaningful as it might appear > to be at first glance. > > For example, using a .org domain name used to be considered the most > appropriate domain name choice in (at least parts of) the Free Software > community for "free software projects". Only the biggest / most > successful of these communities would ever formally establish a legal > entity around the "project", so most of these communities would not > be counted with those "less than 1%". > > I would tend to think that the part of the impact that really matters > is the impact on (formal and informal) non-profit organizations and > initiatives etc., since that's where the intended purpose of carving out > the .org domain space was. Of course, yes, there are others who > registered .org domains for commercial or personal purposes, etc., > without in any way thereby intending to put distance between what > they were doing and the realm of profit-centric activities, and > without putting particular trust in ISOC and/or in any of the various > specific promises that had been made around .org > > In my view, the problem is not only about the purely financial aspects. > > The feelings of betrayal may be more significant and important. > > I would suggest that a very central aspect of human dignity, to which > engagement in not-for-profit activities is very often tied, has been > violated by ISOC's decision. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Nov 28 13:18:23 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 19:18:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> Message-ID: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, James Gannon a écrit : > Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a > statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org > registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these > dicsussions on impact. Dear James, ...please tell them that they can (*even without sourcing their affirmation*) then note that the minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their 'well intended' *big deal*. Why ? ...i guess that 1% of 10M (*domain names*) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are still oppressed by 99% of 10M :'-( Questions : •—• |1) Do you think that the non-commercial [1] world should be eliminated to the Internet ? | |2) Which solution would you propose to the non-commercial Internet Community | to resist then continue to exist ? | |3) Do you see the FotI (*Future of the Internet*) [2] without the non-commercial [1] | Community ? | |4) How are you understanding the *vision* [3] of the InternetSociety.ORG ? | |5) Do you think that the *Building Trust* [4] commitment is compatible with all | the consequences of the sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) ? { *..including: * *| eliminating the non-commercial [1] World in the Internet*} | |6) What is you understanding of words such as inclusiveness, multistakeholder, ... ? | |7) • •—• __ [1]: It's a word ! see criterion 4 to 7 < https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria#6> [2]: FotI [3]: [4]: Shalom, --sb. > On 28.11.19, 14:57, "governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of > Norbert Bollow" nb at bollow.ch> wrote: > > [...] > > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Nov 28 13:40:50 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 18:40:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> Message-ID: <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Im sorry but I have I have said in other public for a, including the access town hall, I wont engage with pure unfounded and factless information, I would much prefer that instead of shouting at the wall, the non commercial community actually step up and start working towards actual concrete steps to lower the risks or to ensure compliance with the statements from ISOC and Ethos around their plans, FUD gets us nowhere. From: Sylvain Baya Date: Thursday, 28 November 2019 at 19:18 To: James Gannon , IGCaucus Cc: Norbert Bollow , Amr Elsadr , Bill Woodcock Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, James Gannon > a écrit : Without commenting on the details just want to call out that we had a statement from ISOC BoT members yesterday that less than 1% of .org registrations sit with not for profits, food for thought in these dicsussions on impact. Dear James, ...please tell them that they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their 'well intended' *big deal*. Why ? ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are still oppressed by 99% of 10M :'-( Questions : •—• |1) Do you think that the non-commercial [1] world should be eliminated to the Internet ? | |2) Which solution would you propose to the non-commercial Internet Community | to resist then continue to exist ? | |3) Do you see the FotI (Future of the Internet) [2] without the non-commercial [1] | Community ? | |4) How are you understanding the *vision* [3] of the InternetSociety.ORG ? | |5) Do you think that the *Building Trust* [4] commitment is compatible with all | the consequences of the sale of the Public Interest Registry (PIR) ? {..including: | eliminating the non-commercial [1] World in the Internet} | |6) What is you understanding of words such as inclusiveness, multistakeholder, ... ? | |7) • •—• __ [1]: It's a word ! see criterion 4 to 7 [2]: FotI [3]: [4]: Shalom, --sb. On 28.11.19, 14:57, "governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of Norbert Bollow" on behalf of nb at bollow.ch> wrote: [...] -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE|‪#‎Romains15:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU de ‪#‎Paix soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen!» ‪#‎MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bzs at theworld.com Thu Nov 28 15:30:56 2019 From: bzs at theworld.com (bzs at theworld.com) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:30:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> Message-ID: <24032.11904.542306.215302@gargle.gargle.HOWL> On November 28, 2019 at 10:10 woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) wrote: > Yep, .org does not have a monopoly, just a brand. There are plenty of other TLDs, more all the time, and if there are organizations that really can’t afford $12/year or $15/year for a domain, they can use a domain from one of the free TLDs (not the surveillance-economy-subsidized ones, but the actual free ccTLDs). > > I just don’t see a couple of dollars a year as a substantial threat. It would be great if people would spend a couple of dollars a year on Internet infrastructure, but having it go to ISOC to fund Internet governance workshops and so forth is also good. And a little bit of that would go to the IETF, would be great. I've argued mostly to the walls here how the laxness and low price of domains has had its consequences (other than making a few individuals quite wealthy.) Originally, like the 1980s, to get a domain you had to show some evidence you had some sort of reason, you represented an organization like IBM.COM or MIT.EDU or even REDCROSS.ORG. And they were free but that's not the point. The bar wasn't very high as the net opened ca 1990 but there was some pressure to not just register some string because you thought it would be cool to own (selling them came quite a bit later.) There were exceptions. What that has brought is this notion of WHOIS privacy. If you actually are doing commerce with the internet, and that includes not-for-profit etc, many countries require you to disclose who you are, provide contact information to the public. But as domains became pet rocks there was pushback for "privacy". IBM doesn't care if you know the address and phone number of their HQ, neither does MIT or the Red Cross, or any other legitimate organization. And if they sort of mind ok they can list their attorney's office or similar. The basic reasoning for requiring contact info came down to revealing some place to serve legal papers if necessary. Hence a lawyer's office was sufficient, or some third party proxy service (these do exist in the WHOIS space.) But you can't really expect someone who grabs FUNNYNOISES.ORG for $15 to have a lawyer or proxy etc. so they published their sales data in WHOIS and some didn't like that. It's a bit like many things on the internet, like spam for example. At first opening it all up seemed like a great and democratic idea, and then bleaker realities arose. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs at TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: +1 617-STD-WRLD | 800-THE-WRLD The World: Since 1989 | A Public Information Utility | *oo* From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 17:15:19 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:15:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <24032.11904.542306.215302@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <24032.11904.542306.215302@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Message-ID: <34ACE52C-53AC-4E68-8FCF-C199F1566BE9@pch.net> > On Nov 28, 2019, at 9:30 PM, bzs at theworld.com wrote: > I've argued mostly to the walls here how the laxness and low price of > domains has had its consequences (other than making a few individuals > quite wealthy.) No argument with anything you just said. Back in the “you’re only allowed to have one” days, at least people were incentivized to choose them carefully. And, yes, whois was a really valuable thing, “why we can’t have nice things” etc. Arrrr. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 17:19:52 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:19:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 17:30:35 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:30:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128173037.161F2FDF8D3@ary.qy> References: <20191128173037.161F2FDF8D3@ary.qy> Message-ID: <4DDB7C7F-AC68-4F3F-B9E8-BBCDC1ACB6DD@pch.net> > On Nov 28, 2019, at 6:30 PM, John Levine wrote: > This is also why I'm baffled by claims that the buyer will increase > the price by some absurd factor. If they did, the non-core > registrants would leave and the registry would collapse. That's > obvious to anyone familiar with the domain business so of course they > won't do that. I don't understand why it's not obvious to everyone > else. Yes, all that... > With respect to complaints that increasing the price from $10 to $12 > would be a hardship, I'm trying to find a non-profit (or anyone) who > is paying for a domain and has any operations at all, yet is so > strapped that $12/yr rather than $10 would be a crisis. That's not > even the price of a cup of bad coffee. …and that... > For the $10 or $12 they're > getting a registry with a skilled staff keeping it working reliably > and also maintaining its quality. …but that’s unfortunately not where the money is going, by and large. PIR has been cutting what it spends on operations, which isn’t good for registrants. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Nov 5 07:02:23 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 12:02:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Hello from your co-cos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all Thank you for the positive responses! Thanks also for the reminder re: Lime Survey, we will definitely use that next time. In the meantime, this is just a gentle reminder to fill out the survey by *COB tomorrow, 06 November*. It only takes 5 minutes! Best Sheetal On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 03:19, Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 31 octobre 2019, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > >> Dear all, >> >> I hope everyone is well. I'm writing here with a few updates from our >> end. >> > > Dear Sheetal, > I'm well and thanking THE Almighty ! Hope you too. > > >> [...] >> Second, very few people were available for an information-sharing call so >> that didn't happen. >> Instead, I have put together *a survey*, drawing on an email Salanieta >> sent around a couple of weeks ago, and where you can share your ideas on >> what IGC should be prioritising over the next 12 months and also what you >> would find useful in terms of internal communications. >> > > Great idea-initiative. > > >> The survey is only 8 questions long and won't take more than 5-10 minutes >> of your time. It will help us shape our priorities and feed into the day 0 >> event so please do fill it out by 06 November: >> https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/92WS6TN >> > > Note that you already have an interesting internal tool (LimeSurvey) ; > which should be used > for all IGC surveys as it served well for the last Co-Co Election (*Thanks > to the Tech Team*). > > I recommend you, then, to start to usually use it, instead of any large > public surveys service. > Just ask for assistance to the Tech Team ;-) > > >> Third, the tech team is meeting online next week to discuss priorities >> and >> > > ...interesting ! > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > >> >>> [...] >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> [...] >> > > > -- > > > -- > > Best Regards ! > > Sylvain BAYA > cmNOG's Co-Founder & Coordinator > (+237) 677005341 > PO Box 13107 YAOUNDE / CAMEROON > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] > abscoco2001 [AT yahoo DOT fr] > http://www.cmnog.cm > https://cmnog.wordpress.com > ************************ > ‪#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬(‪#‎Romains15‬:33):"Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit > avec vous tous!‪#‎Amen‬!" > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. > ‪#‎Chrétiennement‬ > « Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, Ainsi mon > âme soupire après toi, ô DIEU! » (Psaumes 42 :2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 17:51:16 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2019 23:51:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> Message-ID: > On Nov 28, 2019, at 1:42 PM, chlebrum (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > One solution —> go to OPEN-ROOT system 😇👍🏻 > www.open-root.eu No, fragmentation of the namespace does not solve any problems. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 28 18:04:46 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:04:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> Message-ID: <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> > On Nov 28, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only > increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? You can’t have it both ways, either it’s my assumption, or I have an external source for it. As it happens, it’s my assumption. I base it on thirty five years of experience dealing with domain names, and the further foundational assumptions that any purchaser of PIR would, at worst, be interested in maximizing profit, rather than in minimizing the number of registrations. Why would you assume otherwise? > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that would > prevent price differentiation How is that related? Also, the answer is “yes.” Trying to make it sound as though that’s an unanswered question, or doesn’t have an answer which is obvious and clear, is fatuous. > it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? Did you somehow hope that that wouldn’t sound ridiculous, as you were typing it? > We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who will > get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to content > provided by them. No, they won’t, because it won’t happen. You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD. > Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed to > break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org etc etc? Utter straw-man. You don’t appear to be trying to have a conversation in good faith. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Nov 28 20:36:28 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 02:36:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be > *eliminated* by their > > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > > > Why ? > > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] > world is under > > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG > registrations they are > > still oppressed by 99% of 10M > > None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. > You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to > make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be > able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb. > > -Bill > > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Fri Nov 29 10:45:18 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:45:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> Message-ID: <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Dear all This is a response to the posting which I'm quoting in full below. I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. If conduct such as what is exemplified in that posting continues to occur on this list, and if it continues to be tolerated in this online community [which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment where "business" people ( https://www.pch.net/about/people lists the author of that posting as "executive director" in the section titled "business") would be allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules by telling us what is and what isn't an acceptable way of writing about what we think and fear etc; and also the Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and "You don’t appear to be trying to have a conversation in good faith.") and the Charter also explicitly mandates the coordinators to enforce these posting rules], that severely impacts how much anyone is going to engage in discussions here unless they're one of the relatively few people who either enjoy interacting in a context of a toxic and dysfunctional community or who are able to invest a very high amount of personal energy into doing so. In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his postings in this thread is largely correct. After my first posting in this thread, before Bill replied to it, Amr Elsadr, had already responded with good substantive answers to the questions and fears that I had expressed in that particular posting. And I had already replied to Amr thanking him for that. Through Amr's posting, I have come to understand that the financial aspects, and the economic implications of those financial aspects, are unlikely to cause the kind of huge problems that I at first feared. Nevertheless that doesn't cause me to feel any less betrayed by ISOC's decision. Therefore, what actually drives my emotions of feeling very deeply betrayed by ISOC's decision, and my accordingly continuing objection to ISOC's decision, must be something else. Niels ten Oever got much closer to what is for me the heart of the matter in his blogpost https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hri/private-equity-firm-procures-org-internet-society-or-how-public-interest-got-sold-out-again/ — except that for me, being both part of communities of people who strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more ways than one. So yes, in the matter of this particular issue, I posted before really understanding where the heart of the issue is. I did so by asking questions, which for me were actually real questions (based on fears that I had at the time), and when Amr gave valid answers to those questions, I accepted them. I believe that it must be acceptable to ask such questions as I asked without getting accused of acting in bad faith, even if — I'll certainly admit that — I was a bit emotional and polemical in asking those questions. I would insist that it is unacceptable for any requirement to be imposed that one would have to first get rid of one's emotions, such as feelings of having been betrayed by one of the major holders of trust in Internet governance, before being allowed to participate in a civil society conversation on Internet governance. I would also like to note the following about assumptions and sources: Anything which is stated without explicit justification is —pretty much by definition of the concept of an assumption— an assumption for the purposes of any arguments that are explicitly or implicitly based on that statement. That does not preclude the possibility that there can be valid reasons, such as sources and/or arguments, for making particular assumptions. I will certainly accept as a possible source for an assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that very many individuals and communities of people have been royally screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of profit-oriented business thinking; therefore I think it quite reasonable to choose my assumptions more along the lines of the "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent the bad things from happening" variant of Murphy's law), nor does it imply that I would necessarily refrain from thinking about whether there might be good counterarguments to what experienced people assume on the basis of their intuition even in contexts where they have much relevant experience. But my accepting the intuition of people with significant relevant experience as a possible source for assumptions means that I will stop wondering about the source for a claim once it has been explained that it comes from intuition based on long experience with the particular topic area. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Going forward, I'm planning to focus my personal energy on other topics, and therefore I'm not planning to engage further in discussing these matters, at least not in the context of this list which has a long history of sometimes being a quite toxic and dysfunctional environment. But I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to its personal attacks against me. On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:04:46 +0100 Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only > > increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? > > You can’t have it both ways, either it’s my assumption, or I have an > external source for it. > > As it happens, it’s my assumption. I base it on thirty five years of > experience dealing with domain names, and the further foundational > assumptions that any purchaser of PIR would, at worst, be interested > in maximizing profit, rather than in minimizing the number of > registrations. > > Why would you assume otherwise? > > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that > > would prevent price differentiation > > How is that related? Also, the answer is “yes.” Trying to make it > sound as though that’s an unanswered question, or doesn’t have an > answer which is obvious and clear, is fatuous. > > > it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? > > Did you somehow hope that that wouldn’t sound ridiculous, as you were > typing it? > > > We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who > > will get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to > > content provided by them. > > No, they won’t, because it won’t happen. You’re going overboard in > your effort to create FUD. > > > Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed > > to break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org > > etc etc? > > Utter straw-man. > > You don’t appear to be trying to have a conversation in good faith. > > -Bill > From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 29 11:54:42 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:24:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Message-ID: <097EFAFB-EFCF-45EB-9058-CB9C607BDBCB@hserus.net> I am sorry but I agree with Bill here. The points you raise and that Bill called out can certainly be classed as strawman arguments. On 29/11/19, 9:16 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: Dear all This is a response to the posting which I'm quoting in full below. I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. If conduct such as what is exemplified in that posting continues to occur on this list, and if it continues to be tolerated in this online community [which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment where "business" people ( https://www.pch.net/about/people lists the author of that posting as "executive director" in the section titled "business") would be allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules by telling us what is and what isn't an acceptable way of writing about what we think and fear etc; and also the Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and "You don’t appear to be trying to have a conversation in good faith.") and the Charter also explicitly mandates the coordinators to enforce these posting rules], that severely impacts how much anyone is going to engage in discussions here unless they're one of the relatively few people who either enjoy interacting in a context of a toxic and dysfunctional community or who are able to invest a very high amount of personal energy into doing so. In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his postings in this thread is largely correct. After my first posting in this thread, before Bill replied to it, Amr Elsadr, had already responded with good substantive answers to the questions and fears that I had expressed in that particular posting. And I had already replied to Amr thanking him for that. Through Amr's posting, I have come to understand that the financial aspects, and the economic implications of those financial aspects, are unlikely to cause the kind of huge problems that I at first feared. Nevertheless that doesn't cause me to feel any less betrayed by ISOC's decision. Therefore, what actually drives my emotions of feeling very deeply betrayed by ISOC's decision, and my accordingly continuing objection to ISOC's decision, must be something else. Niels ten Oever got much closer to what is for me the heart of the matter in his blogpost https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hri/private-equity-firm-procures-org-internet-society-or-how-public-interest-got-sold-out-again/ — except that for me, being both part of communities of people who strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more ways than one. So yes, in the matter of this particular issue, I posted before really understanding where the heart of the issue is. I did so by asking questions, which for me were actually real questions (based on fears that I had at the time), and when Amr gave valid answers to those questions, I accepted them. I believe that it must be acceptable to ask such questions as I asked without getting accused of acting in bad faith, even if — I'll certainly admit that — I was a bit emotional and polemical in asking those questions. I would insist that it is unacceptable for any requirement to be imposed that one would have to first get rid of one's emotions, such as feelings of having been betrayed by one of the major holders of trust in Internet governance, before being allowed to participate in a civil society conversation on Internet governance. I would also like to note the following about assumptions and sources: Anything which is stated without explicit justification is —pretty much by definition of the concept of an assumption— an assumption for the purposes of any arguments that are explicitly or implicitly based on that statement. That does not preclude the possibility that there can be valid reasons, such as sources and/or arguments, for making particular assumptions. I will certainly accept as a possible source for an assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that very many individuals and communities of people have been royally screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of profit-oriented business thinking; therefore I think it quite reasonable to choose my assumptions more along the lines of the "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent the bad things from happening" variant of Murphy's law), nor does it imply that I would necessarily refrain from thinking about whether there might be good counterarguments to what experienced people assume on the basis of their intuition even in contexts where they have much relevant experience. But my accepting the intuition of people with significant relevant experience as a possible source for assumptions means that I will stop wondering about the source for a claim once it has been explained that it comes from intuition based on long experience with the particular topic area. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Going forward, I'm planning to focus my personal energy on other topics, and therefore I'm not planning to engage further in discussing these matters, at least not in the context of this list which has a long history of sometimes being a quite toxic and dysfunctional environment. But I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to its personal attacks against me. On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 00:04:46 +0100 Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Nov 28, 2019, at 1:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > What's your source for the assumption that a price hike would only > > increase the price to $12/year or $15/year? > > You can’t have it both ways, either it’s my assumption, or I have an > external source for it. > > As it happens, it’s my assumption. I base it on thirty five years of > experience dealing with domain names, and the further foundational > assumptions that any purchaser of PIR would, at worst, be interested > in maximizing profit, rather than in minimizing the number of > registrations. > > Why would you assume otherwise? > > > A related question is whether there is anything in the rules that > > would prevent price differentiation > > How is that related? Also, the answer is “yes.” Trying to make it > sound as though that’s an unanswered question, or doesn’t have an > answer which is obvious and clear, is fatuous. > > > it might charge say $1000/year or $10000/year or even more? > > Did you somehow hope that that wouldn’t sound ridiculous, as you were > typing it? > > > We should also consider the perspective of the general public, who > > will get annoyed by lots of broken links to non-profit orgs and to > > content provided by them. > > No, they won’t, because it won’t happen. You’re going overboard in > your effort to create FUD. > > > Do we really want to live in a world where a price hike is allowed > > to break all links to content at archive.org and intgovforum.org > > etc etc? > > Utter straw-man. > > You don’t appear to be trying to have a conversation in good faith. > > -Bill > --- To unsubscribe: List help: From woody at pch.net Fri Nov 29 13:23:30 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:23:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Message-ID: > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. Why? Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to have a conversation in good faith? > ...which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which > certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment > where "business” people... Just so we get this straight, you’re saying that public-benefit, not-for-profit NGOs should be barred from participation in “civil society” because… what? Who exactly is legitimately civil society by your lights? Only people who agree with you? Anyway, this is a no-true-Scotsman. Does appealing to third parties to exclude someone who disagrees with you from conversation, without addressing their thoughts, strike you as conversation in good faith? > ...allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules... I’m one of an exceedingly small handful of people representing the unfortunately minority view that there are multiple sides to this issue. How does that constitute “domination of the discourse?” Might I not need to be of the predominant view to dominate the discourse? > The Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks > (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and "You don’t appear to be > trying to have a conversation in good faith.") Both are commentary on _what you said_, not _who you are_. Personal attacks, ad-hominem attacks, are attacks against a person, not commentary about ideas. I don’t know or care who you are, I’m only interested in what you think, and whether it can be used to inform and refine what I think. I’m trying to draw you into reasoned discourse about ideas. You’re trying to exclude me from conversation. I don’t have any burning need to defend ISOC, and am not intending to do so; our lawyers have had to send their lawyers too many nastygrams over their misbehavior over the years for me to have any interest in representing them as _good_; however it disturbs me greatly to see people latching on to one tiny aspect of a large and complex situation and in doing so march toward preclusion of the best path to reform that ISOC has had in a long, long time, without bothering to discuss the complexities of the situation. A “personal attack” looks like posting a link to someone’s biography and demanding that they be silenced because of who they are. A reasoned discourse looks like an exchange of views on the topic under discussion. > In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his > postings in this thread is largely correct. Perhaps next time you could reflect on the substance before, or instead of, attacking. > For me, being both part of communities of people who > strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, > who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the > betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more > ways than one. I have, myself, been outraged by ISOC betrayals at various points in the past, but in the interest of my own sanity, I get over it and get back to work. On the other hand, seeing an opportunity for ISOC to disencumber itself of some of the major causes of its problems gives me hope. I’d rather not see that opportunity squandered on account of not-invented-hereism. > I will certainly accept as a possible source for an > assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing > with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of > someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing > with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree > to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing > wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that > very many individuals and communities of people have been royally > screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and > typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, > by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of > profit-oriented business thinking Yes, and I agree with that. However, rapacious capitalism operates within the constraints of the context of the possible. Every rapacious capitalist does not simply price everything at a ridiculous price which precludes it from selling; doing so yields no sales, and no revenue. Instead, they try to guess (or ascertain through experimentation) the price which will yield the maximum net revenue. In the case of PIR and .org, minimizing expenses has been one path… Maximizing gross revenue is the other side of that coin. Maximum revenue is the maximum product of quantity and unit price. An absurd unit price will reduce the size of the potential market to just the intersection of those who can afford the price and those who desire the product. And, in the case of domain names, those who desire, specifically, an available domain name. The market has pretty well established that the retail price that maximizes revenue is in the neighborhood of USD 10 / year. At that price, essentially nobody is dissuaded from buying a domain name, and therefore the second-level namespace gets fairly thoroughly utilized. Hypothetically, a first-year 10% increase (to USD 11) would have little impact on gross revenue (less than 10% decrease in number of sales). A second-year 10% increase (to USD 12) would have a bit more impact, perhaps lessening the gross revenue. By the time you get to USD 16, after five years of maximal increases, quite a few potential customers will be dissuaded, and will think “I may as well just register in .com instead, for $10, and pocket the $5 difference,” and the product of price and quantity would be considerably lower than at $10, or $11, or maybe $12. The strategy that’s pursued by pharmaceutical speculators relies upon _inflexible demand_. That is, they’re “investing” in the rent-extraction rights of things for which the demand does _not_ change with price. In their case, because some people who go without will die. Therefore, everyone who’s capable of doing so pays whatever price is required of them, no matter how ridiculous. Nobody is going to die if they have to move off a .org domain name. And the people who have the most to lose, also have the most money to spend. That’s why the rule precluding differential pricing is so important. It allows all of the .org registrants to stand together as a class, rather than each being offered the maximum individual price that they can stand. If that were to be allowed, ICRC.org would be priced at millions of dollars per year, while domain speculators would pay only a few cents. I’m very much against that, as a matter of equitability. > "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, > and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent > the bad things from happening” Sure, but that has to be balanced against the possibility of good outcomes as well. Otherwise, no risks are every taken, and nothing is ever achieved. My ENTIRE POINT is that the possibility of reforming ISOC seems to me to be a worthwhile one, and, under Andrew’s leadership, to have a significant chance of success. That seems to me to be a risk worth taking, if the cost is a few dollars a year for ten million .org registrants. If there were ways of funding actual core infrastructure and operations that way, rather than depending upon grants and donations, I’d be all over it, for instance. > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to its personal attacks against me. If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have my full apology. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Nov 29 16:26:51 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 22:26:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Message-ID: Dear all, I'm not going to comment on the substance of the discussion here as a co-ordinator I feel obliged to step in and address an issue which has so far excluded people from entering into discussions, or continuing them. The issue is one where people feel attacked, whether all parties included feel the accusation is justified or not. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to work together. And as a result, it makes it very challenging to forge consensus and find areas of agreement. One of the stated objectives of the IGC is " to develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions." Instead, what ends up happening is the conversation goes quiet, everyone gets on with what they're doing in their own corners and we achieve little, or nothing, together. I'm not saying that we need to find consensus on this particular issue, but if every discussion about a contentious issue goes this way then that would be very unfortunate. It even risks putting people off sharing information. In the future, I would ask if people want information in order to be able to make an informed decision or contribute to a discussion, they are clear about that. And if you have that information, please consider offering it in a spirit of humility with the objective of moving a conversation forward together. You can always get in touch with Bruna and I if you feel you are being unfairly treated. I happen to think that this discussion on this topic has been very rich so far, clearly full of informed opinions, and could be very constructive. If you think it would be useful for a facilitated discussion to happen, we can always organise a call or find another way to have the discussion. I'm actually going to share a suggestion on a way forward on this topic which Bruna and I have discussed on the other thread. And in my own personal opinion, we should all care about who each other is. Humility and compassion are important in achieving 'good results' in any rational debate. What these situations prove is that we're not just having discussions about technical issues in the spirit of an intellectual exercise. We are all emotional beings, with our own faults and strengths. It might help us all in the long-run to think that way. Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 19:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: > > > > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. > > Why? Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to have a > conversation in good faith? > > > ...which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which > > certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment > > where "business” people... > > Just so we get this straight, you’re saying that public-benefit, > not-for-profit NGOs should be barred from participation in “civil society” > because… what? Who exactly is legitimately civil society by your lights? > Only people who agree with you? Anyway, this is a no-true-Scotsman. > > Does appealing to third parties to exclude someone who disagrees with you > from conversation, without addressing their thoughts, strike you as > conversation in good faith? > > > ...allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules... > > I’m one of an exceedingly small handful of people representing the > unfortunately minority view that there are multiple sides to this issue. > How does that constitute “domination of the discourse?” Might I not need > to be of the predominant view to dominate the discourse? > > > The Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks > > (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and > "You don’t appear to be > > trying to have a conversation in good faith.") > > Both are commentary on _what you said_, not _who you are_. Personal > attacks, ad-hominem attacks, are attacks against a person, not commentary > about ideas. I don’t know or care who you are, I’m only interested in what > you think, and whether it can be used to inform and refine what I think. > I’m trying to draw you into reasoned discourse about ideas. You’re trying > to exclude me from conversation. > > I don’t have any burning need to defend ISOC, and am not intending to do > so; our lawyers have had to send their lawyers too many nastygrams over > their misbehavior over the years for me to have any interest in > representing them as _good_; however it disturbs me greatly to see people > latching on to one tiny aspect of a large and complex situation and in > doing so march toward preclusion of the best path to reform that ISOC has > had in a long, long time, without bothering to discuss the complexities of > the situation. > > A “personal attack” looks like posting a link to someone’s biography and > demanding that they be silenced because of who they are. A reasoned > discourse looks like an exchange of views on the topic under discussion. > > > In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his > > postings in this thread is largely correct. > > Perhaps next time you could reflect on the substance before, or instead > of, attacking. > > > For me, being both part of communities of people who > > strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, > > who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the > > betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more > > ways than one. > > I have, myself, been outraged by ISOC betrayals at various points in the > past, but in the interest of my own sanity, I get over it and get back to > work. On the other hand, seeing an opportunity for ISOC to disencumber > itself of some of the major causes of its problems gives me hope. I’d > rather not see that opportunity squandered on account of > not-invented-hereism. > > > I will certainly accept as a possible source for an > > assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing > > with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of > > someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing > > with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree > > to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing > > wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that > > very many individuals and communities of people have been royally > > screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and > > typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, > > by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of > > profit-oriented business thinking > > Yes, and I agree with that. However, rapacious capitalism operates within > the constraints of the context of the possible. Every rapacious capitalist > does not simply price everything at a ridiculous price which precludes it > from selling; doing so yields no sales, and no revenue. Instead, they try > to guess (or ascertain through experimentation) the price which will yield > the maximum net revenue. In the case of PIR and .org, minimizing expenses > has been one path… Maximizing gross revenue is the other side of that coin. > Maximum revenue is the maximum product of quantity and unit price. An > absurd unit price will reduce the size of the potential market to just the > intersection of those who can afford the price and those who desire the > product. And, in the case of domain names, those who desire, specifically, > an available domain name. The market has pretty well established that the > retail price that maximizes revenue is in the neighborhood of USD 10 / > year. At that price, essentially nobody is dissuaded from buying a domain > name, and therefore the second-level namespace gets fairly thoroughly > utilized. Hypothetically, a first-year 10% increase (to USD 11) would have > little impact on gross revenue (less than 10% decrease in number of sales). > A second-year 10% increase (to USD 12) would have a bit more impact, > perhaps lessening the gross revenue. By the time you get to USD 16, after > five years of maximal increases, quite a few potential customers will be > dissuaded, and will think “I may as well just register in .com instead, for > $10, and pocket the $5 difference,” and the product of price and quantity > would be considerably lower than at $10, or $11, or maybe $12. > > The strategy that’s pursued by pharmaceutical speculators relies upon > _inflexible demand_. That is, they’re “investing” in the rent-extraction > rights of things for which the demand does _not_ change with price. In > their case, because some people who go without will die. Therefore, > everyone who’s capable of doing so pays whatever price is required of them, > no matter how ridiculous. Nobody is going to die if they have to move off a > .org domain name. And the people who have the most to lose, also have the > most money to spend. > > That’s why the rule precluding differential pricing is so important. It > allows all of the .org registrants to stand together as a class, rather > than each being offered the maximum individual price that they can stand. > If that were to be allowed, ICRC.org would be priced at millions of dollars > per year, while domain speculators would pay only a few cents. I’m very > much against that, as a matter of equitability. > > > "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, > > and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent > > the bad things from happening” > > Sure, but that has to be balanced against the possibility of good outcomes > as well. Otherwise, no risks are every taken, and nothing is ever > achieved. My ENTIRE POINT is that the possibility of reforming ISOC seems > to me to be a worthwhile one, and, under Andrew’s leadership, to have a > significant chance of success. That seems to me to be a risk worth taking, > if the cost is a few dollars a year for ten million .org registrants. If > there were ways of funding actual core infrastructure and operations that > way, rather than depending upon grants and donations, I’d be all over it, > for instance. > > > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to > its personal attacks against me. > > If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have my full > apology. > > -Bill > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Fri Nov 29 19:37:19 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 00:37:19 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Message-ID: <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Thanks Sheetal, That would be ideal. Members should also ideally refrain from - Calls to exclude specific organisations from civil society or this caucus Attempt to fall back on appeals to mailing list co-cos in case a wrong argument is called out The arguments made that had to be rebutted were ill informed and made with no particular technical or business knowledge of the situation, and calls in response to exclude either ISOC, PCH or Bill Woodcock from this list are frankly an abuse of mailing list procedure. Thanks —srs —srs On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 2:57 AM +0530, "Sheetal Kumar" wrote: Dear all,  I'm not going to comment on the substance of the discussion here as a co-ordinator I feel obliged to step in and address an issue which has so far excluded people from entering into discussions, or continuing them. The issue is one where people feel attacked, whether all parties included feel the accusation is justified or not. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to work together. And as a result, it makes it very challenging to forge consensus and find areas of agreement. One of the stated objectives of the IGC is " to develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions." Instead, what ends up happening is the conversation goes quiet, everyone gets on with what they're doing in their own corners and we achieve little, or nothing, together. I'm not saying that we need to find consensus on this particular issue, but if every discussion about a contentious issue goes this way then that would be very unfortunate. It even risks putting people off sharing information. In the future, I would ask if people want information in order to be able to make an informed decision or contribute to a discussion, they are clear about that. And if you have that information, please consider offering it in a spirit of humility with the objective of moving a conversation forward together. You can always get in touch with Bruna and I if you feel you are being unfairly treated. I happen to think that this discussion on this topic has been very rich so far, clearly full of informed opinions, and could be very constructive. If you think it would be useful for a facilitated discussion to happen, we can always organise a call or find another way to have the discussion. I'm actually going to share a suggestion on a way forward on this topic which Bruna and I have discussed on the other thread. And in my own personal opinion, we should all care about who each other is. Humility and compassion are important in achieving 'good results' in any rational debate. What these situations prove is that we're not just having discussions about technical issues in the spirit of an intellectual exercise. We are all emotional beings, with our own faults and strengths. It might help us all in the long-run to think that way. BestSheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 19:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. Why?  Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to have a conversation in good faith? > ...which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which > certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment > where "business” people... Just so we get this straight, you’re saying that public-benefit, not-for-profit NGOs should be barred from participation in “civil society” because…  what?  Who exactly is legitimately civil society by your lights?  Only people who agree with you?  Anyway, this is a no-true-Scotsman. Does appealing to third parties to exclude someone who disagrees with you from conversation, without addressing their thoughts, strike you as conversation in good faith? > ...allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules... I’m one of an exceedingly small handful of people representing the unfortunately minority view that there are multiple sides to this issue.  How does that constitute “domination of the discourse?”  Might I not need to be of the predominant view to dominate the discourse? > The Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks > (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and "You don’t appear to be > trying to have a conversation in good faith.") Both are commentary on _what you said_, not _who you are_.  Personal attacks, ad-hominem attacks, are attacks against a person, not commentary about ideas.  I don’t know or care who you are, I’m only interested in what you think, and whether it can be used to inform and refine what I think.  I’m trying to draw you into reasoned discourse about ideas. You’re trying to exclude me from conversation. I don’t have any burning need to defend ISOC, and am not intending to do so; our lawyers have had to send their lawyers too many nastygrams over their misbehavior over the years for me to have any interest in representing them as _good_; however it disturbs me greatly to see people latching on to one tiny aspect of a large and complex situation and in doing so march toward preclusion of the best path to reform that ISOC has had in a long, long time, without bothering to discuss the complexities of the situation. A “personal attack” looks like posting a link to someone’s biography and demanding that they be silenced because of who they are.  A reasoned discourse looks like an exchange of views on the topic under discussion. > In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his > postings in this thread is largely correct. Perhaps next time you could reflect on the substance before, or instead of, attacking. > For me, being both part of communities of people who > strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, > who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the > betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more > ways than one. I have, myself, been outraged by ISOC betrayals at various points in the past, but in the interest of my own sanity, I get over it and get back to work.  On the other hand, seeing an opportunity for ISOC to disencumber itself of some of the major causes of its problems gives me hope.  I’d rather not see that opportunity squandered on account of not-invented-hereism. > I will certainly accept as a possible source for an > assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing > with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of > someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing > with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree > to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing > wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that > very many individuals and communities of people have been royally > screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and > typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, > by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of > profit-oriented business thinking Yes, and I agree with that. However, rapacious capitalism operates within the constraints of the context of the possible. Every rapacious capitalist does not simply price everything at a ridiculous price which precludes it from selling; doing so yields no sales, and no revenue. Instead, they try to guess (or ascertain through experimentation) the price which will yield the maximum net revenue. In the case of PIR and .org, minimizing expenses has been one path… Maximizing gross revenue is the other side of that coin. Maximum revenue is the maximum product of quantity and unit price. An absurd unit price will reduce the size of the potential market to just the intersection of those who can afford the price and those who desire the product.  And, in the case of domain names, those who desire, specifically, an available domain name. The market has pretty well established that the retail price that maximizes revenue is in the neighborhood of USD 10 / year.  At that price, essentially nobody is dissuaded from buying a domain name, and therefore the second-level namespace gets fairly thoroughly utilized. Hypothetically, a first-year 10% increase (to USD 11) would have little impact on gross revenue (less than 10% decrease in number of sales). A second-year 10% increase (to USD 12) would have a bit more impact, perhaps lessening the gross revenue. By the time you get to USD 16, after five years of maximal increases, quite a few potential customers will be dissuaded, and will think “I may as well just register in .com instead, for $10, and pocket the $5 difference,” and the product of price and quantity would be considerably lower than at $10, or $11, or maybe $12. The strategy that’s pursued by pharmaceutical speculators relies upon _inflexible demand_. That is, they’re “investing” in the rent-extraction rights of things for which the demand does _not_ change with price. In their case, because some people who go without will die. Therefore, everyone who’s capable of doing so pays whatever price is required of them, no matter how ridiculous. Nobody is going to die if they have to move off a .org domain name. And the people who have the most to lose, also have the most money to spend. That’s why the rule precluding differential pricing is so important. It allows all of the .org registrants to stand together as a class, rather than each being offered the maximum individual price that they can stand. If that were to be allowed, ICRC.org would be priced at millions of dollars per year, while domain speculators would pay only a few cents.  I’m very much against that, as a matter of equitability. > "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, > and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent > the bad things from happening” Sure, but that has to be balanced against the possibility of good outcomes as well.  Otherwise, no risks are every taken, and nothing is ever achieved.  My ENTIRE POINT is that the possibility of reforming ISOC seems to me to be a worthwhile one, and, under Andrew’s leadership, to have a significant chance of success.  That seems to me to be a risk worth taking, if the cost is a few dollars a year for ten million .org registrants.  If there were ways of funding actual core infrastructure and operations that way, rather than depending upon grants and donations, I’d be all over it, for instance. > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to its personal attacks against me. If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have my full apology.                                 -Bill -- Sheetal KumarSenior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Sat Nov 30 07:08:26 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:08:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: * *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants?- After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world?- What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital* Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: > Hi all, > > Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : > >> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >> *eliminated* by their >> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >> > >> > Why ? >> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >> world is under >> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >> registrations they are >> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >> >> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to >> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be >> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. > > > ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? > Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? > > Shalom, > --sb. > > >> >> -Bill >> >> > > -- > > -- > Best Regards ! > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < > https://survey.cmnog.cm> > Subscribe to Mailing List : < > https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> > __ > #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec > vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» > ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Sat Nov 30 07:34:54 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:34:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> , Message-ID: <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. Sent from my iPhone On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote:  Dear all, What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: Hi all, Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock > a écrit : > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their > 'well intended' *big deal*. > > Why ? > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are > still oppressed by 99% of 10M None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? Shalom, --sb. -Bill -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=1FZFQZRHN6TGvaFyXGd-rKCCuK7PE6Bn6&revid=0B7yoTEd9c7yidG1oOEJ0TW9jSnNUY0R5anQ3Z3RpOVNPOVNNPQ] --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Tue Nov 5 11:59:39 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:59:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Ian, Yes, the term was “not invented to apply at a national level” but I wouldn’t go so far as to say “things were presumed to be going well” at the national level. In many nations, there are no democratic institutions at all. In those cases, the ideology of “multistakeholder governance” can improve things at the national level, by fostering wider participation and better dialogue among stakeholders. But during WSIS, global internet governance posed new problems that needed to transcend established national governments. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of Ian Peter Sent: Sunday, November 3, 2019 7:13 PM To: governance Subject: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Andrés Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR Andrés El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (>) escribió: Hi all, This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their inputs are being taken seriously. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Arsene 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >: > Ian, > > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > wrote: > >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> PrepCom >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s >> been >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >> indeed. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> Chipping in…. >>> >>> “in their respective roles” >>> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>> as >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>> Shope-Mafole , then >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>> someone >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>> sitting >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>> work >>> for the government?) >>> >>> >>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >>> demanding >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>> of >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>> calling >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>> the >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>> *. >>> The court threw out the two cases >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>> . >>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>> a >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *> on behalf of "Mueller, >>> Milton L" > >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>> *To: *governance > >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>> they >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>> of >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>> something >>> to do with local communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>> of >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>> written >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>> different >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>> could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>> of >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>> things >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>> sector >>> as influential as governments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>> any >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>> integrated >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>> such >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >>> “equal >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>> sharing >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>> >>> >>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>> *To:* governance > >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>> of >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>> that. >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Andrés Piazza @andrespiazza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 22295 bytes Desc: image002.png URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 30 08:17:46 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 14:17:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: Hi all, Please see my comments below (inline)... Le samedi 30 novembre 2019, Sheetal Kumar a écrit : > Dear all, > > What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a > series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I > discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of > this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due > diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to > request they consider and answer certain questions. > Dear Sheetal, Thanks for this proposal. I see it really prudent, and i wonder if this Caucus have took the same approach when the CGC had decided to write an open letter to an InternetSociety.ORG's country chapter. [1] __ [1]: However, please consider the following elements : •— • ask to ICANN Board about the formal & recommended procedure to oppose (if applicable) the sale of the Public Interest Registy • ask the procedure to follow if the community want to manage the .ORG & co registry via a commons PIR (cPIR) non-profit Org (*ToBeCreated*) • add some clear usefull advices to ICANN Board (*including something about a * *commitment to help the non-commercial community to have the cPIR as a future * *.ORG registry*) • mention the initiative somewhere • add the CGC's position or a clear statement of support to the non-commercial community • add a timeline of upcoming actions to anticipate the ICANN's answer • also write to ISOC's BoT/CEO ? •— It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. > See below: > ...please see above ;-) Thanks Shalom, --sb. > *When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these > questions are considered in the due diligence process: * > > > > > *- What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing > millions of .ORG registrants?- After the changes to the .ORG contract to > preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board > intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on > behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, > civil society groups in the world?- What's ICANN's obligation to protect > those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the > world?" - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding > possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos > capital* > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> >>> > they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>> > minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be >>> *eliminated* by their >>> > 'well intended' *big deal*. >>> > >>> > Why ? >>> > ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] >>> world is under >>> > the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG >>> registrations they are >>> > still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>> >>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. >>> You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to >>> make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be >>> able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >> >> >> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >> >> Shalom, >> --sb. >> >> >>> >>> -Bill >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> Best Regards ! >> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < >> https://survey.cmnog.cm> >> Subscribe to Mailing List : > mailman/listinfo/cmnog/> >> __ >> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» >> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >> «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >> soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Nov 30 12:58:05 2019 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 17:58:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> References: <6D89B7AD-7A80-40E0-A612-89C630686B76@egyptig.org> <20191128145713.3d402c2c@quill> <62CCF78E-2638-4114-8CDB-C6282B63CB5C@cyberinvasion.net> , <3DC32C06-F9CD-476D-BD32-FEF6E5DB3011@cyberinvasion.net> Message-ID: <_q_6sr-oF1WW68zjBqVmCL1nGauEQAW9asKUAWed47-SUD_7NzJrCkGohCPGFMkf_EK_AYOXeG64zazIXEbeE3dUB6A2D_R6mEdhYfYAzwQ=@ferdeline.com> While I agree these are questions for the ISOC Board of Trustees, I believe they are *also* questions for the ICANN Board. I expect that the ICANN Board will not respond to them, but I think they could - and should - and I encourage us to place pressure on both parties to take these questions and the sentiments behind them seriously. ICANN, in particular, does need to address at least the perception that there is a revolving door of insiders who are behind this and other deals. And ISOC needs to be more transparent about what due diligence it did before entering into the arrangement to sell PIR, and what mechanisms it has put in place (if any) to protect .ORG, .NGO, and .ONG registrants. Thanks. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Saturday, 30 November 2019 13:34, James Gannon wrote: > These are questions for the ISOC Board not the ICANN board. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On 30 Nov 2019, at 13:09, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > >>  >> Dear all, >> >> What do people think about sending a letter to the ICANN Board with a series of questions in order to get more transparency? Bruna and I discussed this, and chatted to others, and are wondering what you think of this approach. As the Board will meet and discuss the sale as part of a due diligence process, we thought it might be a constructive approach to request they consider and answer certain questions. >> >> It would be great to hear your views on this approach and on the questions. See below: >> >> When the board discusses the sale of .org, we request that these questions are considered in the due diligence process: >> >> - What does the Board intend to do in order to protect the existing millions of .ORG registrants? >> - After the changes to the .ORG contract to preserve existing rights of .ORG registrants, how else does the Board intend to ensure the sale of PIR (this new steward of .org) will act on behalf of the public interest and the world community of noncommercial, civil society groups in the world? >> - What's ICANN's obligation to protect those organizations engaged in missions of "public interest around the world?" >> - How does the Board respond to allegations/concerns regarding possible conflict of interest in transference of stewardship to Ethos capital >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 02:36, Sylvain Baya wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Le jeudi 28 novembre 2019, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >>> >>>>> they can (even without sourcing their affirmation) then note that the >>>>> minority of *non-commercial* [1] Internet Community is about to be *eliminated* by their >>>>> 'well intended' *big deal*. >>>>> >>>>> Why ? >>>>> ...i guess that 1% of 10M (domain names) +=> the non-commercial [1] world is under >>>>> the pressure of commercial world in the Internet, even in .ORG registrations they are >>>>> still oppressed by 99% of 10M >>>> >>>> None of the above parses. Please try again, with simpler construction. You can break it out into as many sentences as you like, but please try to make each one encapsulate exactly one thought. Else nobody is going to be able to engage in a constructive conversation with you. >>> >>> ...what's the point please, dear Bill ? >>> Do you really want to convince me without argumenting ? >>> >>> Shalom, >>> --sb. >>> >>>> -Bill >>> >>> -- >>> >>> -- >>> Best Regards ! >>> baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | >>> Subscribe to Mailing List : >>> __ >>> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >>> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >>> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> >> Sheetal Kumar >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Sat Nov 30 14:52:24 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:52:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> Message-ID: <20191130205224.1f490a36@quill> On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 19:23:30 +0100 Bill Woodcock wrote: > > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. > > Why? At this stage I don't have any additional insights in relation to this that would go beyond what I have already written. > Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to have a > conversation in good faith? Yes, absolutely. And I believe that the record proves this. I'm here specifically referring to my response to Amr Elsadr's reply. > [...] Lots of points snipped, to which I'm not responding for the reason given below. > > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular > > to its personal attacks against me. > > If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have my > full apology. I take note of this non-apology and choose not to continue a conversation (that I don't get paid for, and which wouldn't advance any of the causes that I personally particularly care about) with someone who considers it justifiable to treat me, or anyone else, in such a manner that feels totally as a personal attack to me. Norbert -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Nov 30 15:22:43 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 1 Dec 2019 01:52:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: On 30/11/19 6:07 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Thanks Sheetal, That would be ideal. > > Members should also ideally refrain from - > > Calls to exclude specific organisations from civil society or this caucus > > Attempt to fall back on appeals to mailing list co-cos in case a wrong > argument is called out > > The arguments made that had to be rebutted were ill informed and made > with no particular technical or business knowledge of the situation, Sheetal/ Bruno This is a repeat ad hominem attack even after Sheetal's note, after the same person having expressed strong agreement with another person making ad hominem remarks against Norbert. Are the co-coordinators taking notice? parminder > and calls in response to exclude either ISOC, PCH or Bill Woodcock > from this list are frankly an abuse of mailing list procedure. > > Thanks > —srs > > —srs > > > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 2:57 AM +0530, "Sheetal Kumar" > > wrote: > > Dear all,  > > I'm not going to comment on the substance of the discussion here > as a co-ordinator I feel obliged to step in and address an issue > which has so far excluded people from entering into discussions, > or continuing them. The issue is one where people feel attacked, > whether all parties included feel the accusation is justified or > not. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to work together. > And as a result, it makes it very challenging to forge consensus > and find areas of agreement. One of the stated objectives of the > IGC is " to develop common positions on issues relating to > Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for > informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS > groups and individuals for such positions." Instead, what ends up > happening is the conversation goes quiet, everyone gets on with > what they're doing in their own corners and we achieve little, or > nothing, together. I'm not saying that we need to find consensus > on this particular issue, but if every discussion about a > contentious issue goes this way then that would be very > unfortunate. It even risks putting people off sharing information. > > In the future, I would ask if people want information in order to > be able to make an informed decision or contribute to a > discussion, they are clear about that. And if you have that > information, please consider offering it in a spirit of humility > with the objective of moving a conversation forward together. You > can always get in touch with Bruna and I if you feel you are being > unfairly treated. I happen to think that this discussion on this > topic has been very rich so far, clearly full of informed > opinions, and could be very constructive. If you think it would be > useful for a facilitated discussion to happen, we can always > organise a call or find another way to have the discussion. I'm > actually going to share a suggestion on a way forward on this > topic which Bruna and I have discussed on the other thread. > > And in my own personal opinion, we should all care about who each > other is. Humility and compassion are important in achieving 'good > results' in any rational debate. What these situations prove is > that we're not just having discussions about technical issues in > the spirit of an intellectual exercise. We are all emotional > beings, with our own faults and strengths. It might help us all in > the long-run to think that way. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 19:24, Bill Woodcock > wrote: > > > > > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow > wrote: > > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. > > Why?  Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to > have a conversation in good faith? > > > ...which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which > > certainly implies in particular that it should not be an > environment > > where "business” people... > > Just so we get this straight, you’re saying that > public-benefit, not-for-profit NGOs should be barred from > participation in “civil society” because…  what?  Who exactly > is legitimately civil society by your lights?  Only people who > agree with you?  Anyway, this is a no-true-Scotsman. > > Does appealing to third parties to exclude someone who > disagrees with you from conversation, without addressing their > thoughts, strike you as conversation in good faith? > > > ...allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules... > > I’m one of an exceedingly small handful of people representing > the unfortunately minority view that there are multiple sides > to this issue.  How does that constitute “domination of the > discourse?”  Might I not need to be of the predominant view to > dominate the discourse? > > > The Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal > attacks > > (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create > FUD." and "You don’t appear to be > > trying to have a conversation in good faith.") > > Both are commentary on _what you said_, not _who you are_.  > Personal attacks, ad-hominem attacks, are attacks against a > person, not commentary about ideas.  I don’t know or care who > you are, I’m only interested in what you think, and whether it > can be used to inform and refine what I think.  I’m trying to > draw you into reasoned discourse about ideas. You’re trying to > exclude me from conversation. > > I don’t have any burning need to defend ISOC, and am not > intending to do so; our lawyers have had to send their lawyers > too many nastygrams over their misbehavior over the years for > me to have any interest in representing them as _good_; > however it disturbs me greatly to see people latching on to > one tiny aspect of a large and complex situation and in doing > so march toward preclusion of the best path to reform that > ISOC has had in a long, long time, without bothering to > discuss the complexities of the situation. > > A “personal attack” looks like posting a link to someone’s > biography and demanding that they be silenced because of who > they are.  A reasoned discourse looks like an exchange of > views on the topic under discussion. > > > In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his > > postings in this thread is largely correct. > > Perhaps next time you could reflect on the substance before, > or instead of, attacking. > > > For me, being both part of communities of people who > > strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented > organizing, > > who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the > > betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me > in more > > ways than one. > > I have, myself, been outraged by ISOC betrayals at various > points in the past, but in the interest of my own sanity, I > get over it and get back to work.  On the other hand, seeing > an opportunity for ISOC to disencumber itself of some of the > major causes of its problems gives me hope.  I’d rather not > see that opportunity squandered on account of > not-invented-hereism. > > > I will certainly accept as a possible source for an > > assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of > experience dealing > > with the particular topic area (such as in this case the > intuition of > > someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience > dealing > > with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would > necessarily agree > > to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I > see nothing > > wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by > observing that > > very many individuals and communities of people have been > royally > > screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and > > typically with no reasonably available effective recourse > whatsoever, > > by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of > > profit-oriented business thinking > > Yes, and I agree with that. However, rapacious capitalism > operates within the constraints of the context of the > possible. Every rapacious capitalist does not simply price > everything at a ridiculous price which precludes it from > selling; doing so yields no sales, and no revenue. Instead, > they try to guess (or ascertain through experimentation) the > price which will yield the maximum net revenue. In the case of > PIR and .org, minimizing expenses has been one path… > Maximizing gross revenue is the other side of that coin. > Maximum revenue is the maximum product of quantity and unit > price. An absurd unit price will reduce the size of the > potential market to just the intersection of those who can > afford the price and those who desire the product.  And, in > the case of domain names, those who desire, specifically, an > available domain name. The market has pretty well established > that the retail price that maximizes revenue is in the > neighborhood of USD 10 / year.  At that price, essentially > nobody is dissuaded from buying a domain name, and therefore > the second-level namespace gets fairly thoroughly utilized. > Hypothetically, a first-year 10% increase (to USD 11) would > have little impact on gross revenue (less than 10% decrease in > number of sales). A second-year 10% increase (to USD 12) would > have a bit more impact, perhaps lessening the gross revenue. > By the time you get to USD 16, after five years of maximal > increases, quite a few potential customers will be dissuaded, > and will think “I may as well just register in .com instead, > for $10, and pocket the $5 difference,” and the product of > price and quantity would be considerably lower than at $10, or > $11, or maybe $12. > > The strategy that’s pursued by pharmaceutical speculators > relies upon _inflexible demand_. That is, they’re “investing” > in the rent-extraction rights of things for which the demand > does _not_ change with price. In their case, because some > people who go without will die. Therefore, everyone who’s > capable of doing so pays whatever price is required of them, > no matter how ridiculous. Nobody is going to die if they have > to move off a .org domain name. And the people who have the > most to lose, also have the most money to spend. > > That’s why the rule precluding differential pricing is so > important. It allows all of the .org registrants to stand > together as a class, rather than each being offered the > maximum individual price that they can stand. If that were to > be allowed, ICRC.org would be priced at millions of dollars > per year, while domain speculators would pay only a few > cents.  I’m very much against that, as a matter of equitability. > > > "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong > somewhere, somehow, > > and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken > to prevent > > the bad things from happening” > > Sure, but that has to be balanced against the possibility of > good outcomes as well.  Otherwise, no risks are every taken, > and nothing is ever achieved.  My ENTIRE POINT is that the > possibility of reforming ISOC seems to me to be a worthwhile > one, and, under Andrew’s leadership, to have a significant > chance of success.  That seems to me to be a risk worth > taking, if the cost is a few dollars a year for ten million > .org registrants.  If there were ways of funding actual core > infrastructure and operations that way, rather than depending > upon grants and donations, I’d be all over it, for instance. > > > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in > particular to its personal attacks against me. > > If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have > my full apology. > >                                 -Bill > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 > 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From daveb at dslprime.com Sat Nov 30 15:58:17 2019 From: daveb at dslprime.com (Dave Burstein) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 15:58:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good faith at ISOC & comment on IGF In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: Folks I know many of the board members at ISOC. I've been one of the most skeptical of the deal, which clearly causes some important harm. That said, I have written they are honorable and not corrupt. When the $1.135B figure was (finally) released, I write the below, including "If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal." Reasonable people *might* decide that $1B+ for an organization committed to the Internet for everybody is enough to balance the harms we've discussed. I'm sending this here because I'm sure most of the people on this list are likewise honorable, even if I think their positions wrong. There are crooks in this world, including many US Congressmen, but very few of them bother with this list or the ISOC board. It's now important we work to bring ISOC back to its mission and open internal processes. ISOC is very far away from living up to our principles. If you're not an ISOC member, do join and choose a chapter. If there's no chapter where you are, the New York Chapter welcomes you. A third of our members are not local. My strength is tech, not policy. If you need to know whether Massive MIMO is the cost-effective way to a robust Internet, please ask. (It is, per Stanford Professor Paulraj.) Or what's really going on in 5G. I've also included an opinion piece on IGF. I listened to a session on IoT which was completely out of touch. To be widely adopted, IoT devices need to cost $2-$5. The suggestions on that panel would cost more than that. https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1166-1-300-000-000-to-internet-society-if-org-deal-goes-down Breaking: $1,135,000,000 to Internet Society if .org Deal Goes Down Tim Berners-Lee, over 10,000 at https://savedotorg.org/#add-org, slews of reporters, 3 ISOC Chapters and almost all well-informed independents are strongly opposed to the deal. The Internet Society just revealed it would get 1.13 Billion from very rich US investors for .org. That is enough money that honorable people have decided the damage to the Internet from the deal should be overridden. The deal will die if Pennsylvania or ICANN blocks or even delays. If I were on the board, I might have voted for the deal. I've been among the most skeptical, partly because the amount and many other key details were totally secret. I would have demanded much more information and public discussion. I'm strongly advocating ISOC now take extraordinary steps to heal the rift with the chapters and restore the public perception of ISOC. https://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/1162-igf-talkfest-crisis-chaos-or-just-evolving IGF Talkfest: Crisis, Chaos, or Just Evolving "The Internet Governance Forum does need to evolve," ICANN & ISOC-NY board member Avri Doria emails. "Speaking personally, I do not believe the IGF would disappear. If something were to happen, or if in the future it was not renewed by the UN General Assembly, then it could be recreated in a bottom-up manner as an international place to bring the various groups together. I also said that I considered the National and Regional Initiative one of the greatest outcomes of the IGF because they brought "Internet Governance" to the national and regional level." The most common criticism of the IGF is that all it does is talk, talk, talk. That's valuable, but many hope for IGF to have direct results. Monika Ermert, the best-informed commentator on "Internet Governance," writes, "In Berlin, the hosts want to work hard to lead the IGF out of the crisis, which has been around for a few years because it only debates and does not act. ... Die Machtlosigkeit ist dabei ein Geburtsfehler." Ermert describes a highly chaotic program. >From the beginning, governments did not want to give away power. I've reported that the non-government participants have come overwhelmingly from the US and allies, as well as some others in general agreement. The non-government attendees rarely spoke from the point of view of the global south, which now represents the strong majority of Internet users. Two-thirds of the world want a more internationally representative group in charge, presumably the ITU. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sat Nov 30 17:55:59 2019 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2019 22:55:59 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Response to personal attacks Re: PIR Case/or the .org sell In-Reply-To: References: <5E0E623F-C0BD-4347-871F-FA699E43D918@pch.net> <0XScG1PKK5znCkGvseESq7l5LFLy0fBhAf_cKPF6hh4sK0COCkGc7a2tpSppMFn0jBVSnEVihzZp0MaDPKqtVmpsHnf8prHgyDcujdfJidU=@ferdeline.com> <24031.14022.858215.618657@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <78CB5A43-4CEE-4E24-9634-ABB0A36F264D@pch.net> <20191128132427.6bcbbda6@quill> <04908EEB-AAC0-49A4-A7DA-229888D02610@pch.net> <20191129164518.514a22ae@quill> <61F5B94B4A58BE79.283D52DB-CB33-4626-AE36-D8C331BCF8CE@mail.outlook.com> Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.C8199F46-F358-4997-BD9B-D7294C86190E@mail.outlook.com> There is nothing that attacks Norbert personally and these are all criticisms of his actions and viewpoints.  I did say “engaging cocos as a first resort instead of reasoned argument” and here is yet another example of the same. --srs On Sun, Dec 1, 2019 at 1:53 AM +0530, "parminder" wrote: On 30/11/19 6:07 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Thanks Sheetal, That would be ideal. Members should also ideally refrain from - Calls to exclude specific organisations from civil society or this caucus Attempt to fall back on appeals to mailing list co-cos in case a wrong argument is called out The arguments made that had to be rebutted were ill informed and made with no particular technical or business knowledge of the situation, Sheetal/ Bruno This is a repeat ad hominem attack even after Sheetal's note, after the same person having expressed strong agreement with another person making ad hominem remarks against Norbert. Are the co-coordinators taking notice? parminder and calls in response to exclude either ISOC, PCH or Bill Woodcock from this list are frankly an abuse of mailing list procedure. Thanks —srs —srs On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 2:57 AM +0530, "Sheetal Kumar" wrote: Dear all,  I'm not going to comment on the substance of the discussion here as a co-ordinator I feel obliged to step in and address an issue which has so far excluded people from entering into discussions, or continuing them. The issue is one where people feel attacked, whether all parties included feel the accusation is justified or not. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to work together. And as a result, it makes it very challenging to forge consensus and find areas of agreement. One of the stated objectives of the IGC is " to develop common positions on issues relating to Internet governance policies, and make outreach efforts both for informing and for creating broad-based support among other CS groups and individuals for such positions." Instead, what ends up happening is the conversation goes quiet, everyone gets on with what they're doing in their own corners and we achieve little, or nothing, together. I'm not saying that we need to find consensus on this particular issue, but if every discussion about a contentious issue goes this way then that would be very unfortunate. It even risks putting people off sharing information. In the future, I would ask if people want information in order to be able to make an informed decision or contribute to a discussion, they are clear about that. And if you have that information, please consider offering it in a spirit of humility with the objective of moving a conversation forward together. You can always get in touch with Bruna and I if you feel you are being unfairly treated. I happen to think that this discussion on this topic has been very rich so far, clearly full of informed opinions, and could be very constructive. If you think it would be useful for a facilitated discussion to happen, we can always organise a call or find another way to have the discussion. I'm actually going to share a suggestion on a way forward on this topic which Bruna and I have discussed on the other thread. And in my own personal opinion, we should all care about who each other is. Humility and compassion are important in achieving 'good results' in any rational debate. What these situations prove is that we're not just having discussions about technical issues in the spirit of an intellectual exercise. We are all emotional beings, with our own faults and strengths. It might help us all in the long-run to think that way. Best Sheetal On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 at 19:24, Bill Woodcock wrote: > On Nov 29, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I felt personally attacked and hurt by that posting. Why?  Do you, in retrospect, feel that you _were_ trying to have a conversation in good faith? > ...which is supposed to be a "civil society" community, which > certainly implies in particular that it should not be an environment > where "business” people... Just so we get this straight, you’re saying that public-benefit, not-for-profit NGOs should be barred from participation in “civil society” because…  what?  Who exactly is legitimately civil society by your lights?  Only people who agree with you?  Anyway, this is a no-true-Scotsman. Does appealing to third parties to exclude someone who disagrees with you from conversation, without addressing their thoughts, strike you as conversation in good faith? > ...allowed to dominate the discourse and its informal rules... I’m one of an exceedingly small handful of people representing the unfortunately minority view that there are multiple sides to this issue.  How does that constitute “domination of the discourse?”  Might I not need to be of the predominant view to dominate the discourse? > The Charter of this community explicitly forbids personal attacks > (like e.g. "You’re going overboard in your effort to create FUD." and "You don’t appear to be > trying to have a conversation in good faith.") Both are commentary on _what you said_, not _who you are_.  Personal attacks, ad-hominem attacks, are attacks against a person, not commentary about ideas.  I don’t know or care who you are, I’m only interested in what you think, and whether it can be used to inform and refine what I think.  I’m trying to draw you into reasoned discourse about ideas. You’re trying to exclude me from conversation. I don’t have any burning need to defend ISOC, and am not intending to do so; our lawyers have had to send their lawyers too many nastygrams over their misbehavior over the years for me to have any interest in representing them as _good_; however it disturbs me greatly to see people latching on to one tiny aspect of a large and complex situation and in doing so march toward preclusion of the best path to reform that ISOC has had in a long, long time, without bothering to discuss the complexities of the situation. A “personal attack” looks like posting a link to someone’s biography and demanding that they be silenced because of who they are.  A reasoned discourse looks like an exchange of views on the topic under discussion. > In regard to substance, I now think that what Bill wrote in his > postings in this thread is largely correct. Perhaps next time you could reflect on the substance before, or instead of, attacking. > For me, being both part of communities of people who > strongly believe in the importance of non-profit-oriented organizing, > who got betrayed, and being also a member of ISOC, which did the > betraying, the issue is quite personal and emotional for me in more > ways than one. I have, myself, been outraged by ISOC betrayals at various points in the past, but in the interest of my own sanity, I get over it and get back to work.  On the other hand, seeing an opportunity for ISOC to disencumber itself of some of the major causes of its problems gives me hope.  I’d rather not see that opportunity squandered on account of not-invented-hereism. > I will certainly accept as a possible source for an > assumption the intuition of someone who has a lot of experience dealing > with the particular topic area (such as in this case the intuition of > someone who credibly claims "thirty five years of experience dealing > with domain names"). That doesn't imply that I would necessarily agree > to also base my thinking on the same assumptions (in fact I see nothing > wrong in basing my assumptions on an intuition shaped by observing that > very many individuals and communities of people have been royally > screwed in unexpected ways, in very many different contexts, and > typically with no reasonably available effective recourse whatsoever, > by trust and promises getting carelessly broken on the basis of > profit-oriented business thinking Yes, and I agree with that. However, rapacious capitalism operates within the constraints of the context of the possible. Every rapacious capitalist does not simply price everything at a ridiculous price which precludes it from selling; doing so yields no sales, and no revenue. Instead, they try to guess (or ascertain through experimentation) the price which will yield the maximum net revenue. In the case of PIR and .org, minimizing expenses has been one path… Maximizing gross revenue is the other side of that coin. Maximum revenue is the maximum product of quantity and unit price. An absurd unit price will reduce the size of the potential market to just the intersection of those who can afford the price and those who desire the product.  And, in the case of domain names, those who desire, specifically, an available domain name. The market has pretty well established that the retail price that maximizes revenue is in the neighborhood of USD 10 / year.  At that price, essentially nobody is dissuaded from buying a domain name, and therefore the second-level namespace gets fairly thoroughly utilized. Hypothetically, a first-year 10% increase (to USD 11) would have little impact on gross revenue (less than 10% decrease in number of sales). A second-year 10% increase (to USD 12) would have a bit more impact, perhaps lessening the gross revenue. By the time you get to USD 16, after five years of maximal increases, quite a few potential customers will be dissuaded, and will think “I may as well just register in .com instead, for $10, and pocket the $5 difference,” and the product of price and quantity would be considerably lower than at $10, or $11, or maybe $12. The strategy that’s pursued by pharmaceutical speculators relies upon _inflexible demand_. That is, they’re “investing” in the rent-extraction rights of things for which the demand does _not_ change with price. In their case, because some people who go without will die. Therefore, everyone who’s capable of doing so pays whatever price is required of them, no matter how ridiculous. Nobody is going to die if they have to move off a .org domain name. And the people who have the most to lose, also have the most money to spend. That’s why the rule precluding differential pricing is so important. It allows all of the .org registrants to stand together as a class, rather than each being offered the maximum individual price that they can stand. If that were to be allowed, ICRC.org would be priced at millions of dollars per year, while domain speculators would pay only a few cents.  I’m very much against that, as a matter of equitability. > "anything that can go wrong will probably go wrong somewhere, somehow, > and possibly massively, unless effective measures are taken to prevent > the bad things from happening” Sure, but that has to be balanced against the possibility of good outcomes as well.  Otherwise, no risks are every taken, and nothing is ever achieved.  My ENTIRE POINT is that the possibility of reforming ISOC seems to me to be a worthwhile one, and, under Andrew’s leadership, to have a significant chance of success.  That seems to me to be a risk worth taking, if the cost is a few dollars a year for ten million .org registrants.  If there were ways of funding actual core infrastructure and operations that way, rather than depending upon grants and donations, I’d be all over it, for instance. > I did want to respond to that particular posting and in particular to its personal attacks against me. If you can identify a personal attack against you, you’ll have my full apology.                                 -Bill -- Sheetal Kumar Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Nov 5 12:22:59 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 17:22:59 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all, We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is great! Please RSVP here if you haven't already done so: https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for the break-out group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is definitely an important area but if we can't find a facilitator for the session we will unfortunately have to drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places at the same time :) As such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested in facilitating that session. Best Sheetal On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear Veronica, all, > > Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! I'll note that down. > > Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up this RSVP (thanks > Imran)! > > Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. The event will be > held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. > > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica wrote: > >> >> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for putting it together. >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the list and APC as a >> Coordinator at the Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be participating >> in the meeting and happy to help with the sessions on Content Moderation >> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, >> if needed. >> >> *Best regards. ** Verónica * >> >> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is "Pre-event 43: Civil >> Society Coordination Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November 25 >> from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes instead of initiatives, it was >> suggested elsewhere that we should try and develop a response to the HLPDC >> report in some way so that's why I put that down as a focus. >> >> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the input so far, highlighting >> the changes in light yellow. >> >> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each session that would be >> great :) - any takers? >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> *---------------------------------------* >> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >> Issues (six issues) >> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, >> possible messages) >> - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level Panel >> on Digital Cooperation) >> - Cybercrime >> - Sustainable Development >> - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace (w/ focus on >> 1st Committee) >> - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion >> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >> necessitate working together >> >> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes. >>> >>> What is the goal and scope of the ethics discussion? I note the >>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >>> discussion. If this was meant to cover the discussion of fairness and >>> ethics in AI, might it not be better to have a 'Emerging Technologies' >>> section, where we could talk of the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >>> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to human rights? >>> >>> Just on its face, I would hate to see the civil society agenda mainly >>> discussing emerging technologies through a lens of 'ethics.' >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène Tungali >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>>> >>>> My apologies for being silent on this, so many things going on in my >>>> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, Sheetal, which looks great to >>>> me. >>>> >>>> I want to echo and support the inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>>> think make sense. >>>> >>>> I believe our session is the following, as seen on the agenda, right? >>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>>> >>>> If that's the case, the time hasn't changed according to what you said >>>> in your original email? Please do help clarify. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arsene >>>> >>>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke : >>>> > Hi Sheetal >>>> > This looks good as I hope the cybercrime session will be able to >>>> address >>>> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>>> particularly. >>>> > Weldone. >>>> > ____ >>>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>>> > ; ITREALMS >>>> > , NaijaAgroNet >>>> > ) >>>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>>> Oshodi-Lagos >>>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>>> > >>>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>>> > * >>>> > JOIN us!! >>>> > >>>> > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society >>>> (ACSIS >>>> > ) >>>> > _________________________________________________________________ >>>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>>> attachments >>>> > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>>> intended >>>> > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept >>>> legal >>>> > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >>>> intended >>>> > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document >>>> and do >>>> > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor >>>> make >>>> > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal Kumar >>> > >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Dear all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Please find below the suggestions so far discussed among IGC members >>>> for >>>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I suggest for the second part that we >>>> >> identify volunteers for each of the six issue areas to facilitate the >>>> >> discussion. >>>> >> >>>> >> It would be great to get your views on the below over the coming >>>> days: >>>> >> >>>> >> - What do you think of the proposed format? >>>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to facilitate any of the issue area >>>> >> discussions in part 2? >>>> >> >>>> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing from you! >>>> >> Best >>>> >> >>>> >> Sheetal. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >> >>>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>> >> >>>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>> >> Issues (six issues) >>>> >> >>>> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the >>>> >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >>>> >> discussed, >>>> >> possible messages) >>>> >> - High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>>> >> - Cybercrime >>>> >> - Ethics >>>> >> - Sustainable Development >>>> >> - Christchurch call >>>> >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>>> >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion >>>> >> >>>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>> >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>> >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>> >> necessitate >>>> >> working together >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael J. Oghia >>> > >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to argue *against* speaking about >>>> >>> climate change and sustainability, so if people really want to >>>> discuss >>>> >>> that >>>> >>> then great! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. I'd be happy to do a webinar at >>>> some >>>> >>> point (I already have the presentation and have delivered it >>>> before). >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit of this topic. Let's see what >>>> >>> others say, but know that I am flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Best, >>>> >>> -Michael >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Shorey >>>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and I’m excited to read all the >>>> >>>> interesting topics and activity that’s happening here! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on sustainability, I politely disagree >>>> with >>>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* have an agenda item on this >>>> topic, if >>>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> My reason being is that it appears there is a broad interest in >>>> this >>>> >>>> topic, but that many people are not actually aware of all the >>>> activity >>>> >>>> that >>>> >>>> is going on, in particular the work that IRPC has been doing. From >>>> a >>>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked through the IGF schedule, it >>>> was not >>>> >>>> at >>>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session would cover climate change. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, so I reckon a brief agenda item >>>> - >>>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an overview of the work that’s been >>>> >>>> taking >>>> >>>> place and direct people where to engage - would be an excellent >>>> way to >>>> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell of interest, and compliment >>>> the >>>> >>>> work >>>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more people into the fold and >>>> amplifying >>>> >>>> the >>>> >>>> message. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow this up with a webinar or >>>> >>>> something, >>>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real value to a brief agenda item >>>> >>>> introducing the topic and current activities, and doing so in >>>> person to >>>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so people can put a face to a name and >>>> have >>>> >>>> someone they can also chat to during the margins of the event. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>>> >>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to be involved in the program and share my >>>> experiences. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Arzak >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Peter Micek < >>>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org> >>>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:27:51 PM >>>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL ; Sheetal Kumar < >>>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>; Michael J. Oghia ; >>>> >>>> governance ; Nick Shorey Lists < >>>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com>; Naman Aggarwal >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: >>>> planning >>>> >>>> and preparation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes of the Day 0 meeting to discuss >>>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on the new #WhyID coalition and >>>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that digital ID programs must >>>> respect >>>> >>>> good >>>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity norms. These mandatory >>>> ID >>>> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed without a chance for civil >>>> society >>>> >>>> input, and before asking whether and why we need them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the campaign, ping Naman Aggarwal >>>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kossi Amessinou < >>>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>>> This charter >>>> >>>>> < >>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/numerique/Charte-pour-un-internet-libre-et-sur.pdf >>>> > >>>> >>>>> is important for all but we can put also the african declaration >>>> (FR >>>> >>>>> < >>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/African-Declaration-French-FINAL.pdf >>>> >, >>>> >>>>> EN >>>> >>>>> < >>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf >>>> >) >>>> >>>>> on the table. >>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, Nnenna Nwakanma < >>>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel Report on Digital Cooperation >>>> should >>>> >>>>>> be on the agenda. Not just feedback on the report, but >>>> anticipating >>>> >>>>>> CS >>>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>>> >>>>>> Following the Christchurch call a Charter >>>> >>>>>> < >>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/numerique/charte-pour-internet-libre-ouvert-et-sur >>>> > >>>> >>>>>> was launched. I have also copied and posted what I think is an >>>> >>>>>> important >>>> >>>>>> Declaration of key governments. Simply put, we need to >>>> discuss how >>>> >>>>>> we >>>> >>>>>> respond to internet governance legislation and regulatory moves >>>> >>>>>> across the >>>> >>>>>> world. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned, I will be in Berlin >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Best >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> N >>>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint statement affirmed by these >>>> countries: >>>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, >>>> Denmark, >>>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, >>>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>>> Republic >>>> >>>>>> of >>>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> United >>>> >>>>>> States. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >>>> Cyberspace >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Information technology is transforming modern life, driving >>>> >>>>>> innovation >>>> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the sharing of ideas, of >>>> cultures, and >>>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its benefits have brought the global >>>> >>>>>> community >>>> >>>>>> closer together than ever before in history. Even as we >>>> recognize the >>>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace has brought to our citizens and >>>> strive >>>> >>>>>> to >>>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue to reap its benefits, a >>>> challenge to >>>> >>>>>> this >>>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and non-state actors are using >>>> cyberspace >>>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for irresponsible behavior from which >>>> to >>>> >>>>>> target >>>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our citizens, undermine democracies >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> international institutions and organizations, and undercut fair >>>> >>>>>> competition >>>> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing ideas when they cannot create >>>> them. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the international community has made clear >>>> that >>>> >>>>>> the international rules-based order should guide state behavior >>>> in >>>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have increasingly coalesced around >>>> an >>>> >>>>>> evolving >>>> >>>>>> framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace >>>> (framework), >>>> >>>>>> which >>>> >>>>>> supports the international rules-based order, affirms the >>>> >>>>>> applicability of >>>> >>>>>> international law to state-on-state behavior, adherence to >>>> voluntary >>>> >>>>>> norms >>>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in peacetime, and the development >>>> and >>>> >>>>>> implementation of practical confidence building measures to help >>>> >>>>>> reduce the >>>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents. All members of >>>> the >>>> >>>>>> United >>>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed this framework, >>>> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN Groups of Governmental Experts >>>> >>>>>> reports >>>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to uphold the international >>>> rules-based >>>> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, implementation, and further >>>> >>>>>> development, >>>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN negotiations of the Open Ended >>>> Working >>>> >>>>>> Group >>>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. We support targeted >>>> cybersecurity >>>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that all responsible states can >>>> implement >>>> >>>>>> this >>>> >>>>>> framework and better protect their networks from significant >>>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise destabilizing cyber activity. We >>>> reiterate >>>> >>>>>> that >>>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be respected and protected by states >>>> >>>>>> online, as >>>> >>>>>> well as offline, including when addressing cybersecurity. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold the international rules-based >>>> >>>>>> order, >>>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in safeguarding the benefits of a free, >>>> open, >>>> >>>>>> and >>>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future generations. When necessary, we will >>>> >>>>>> work >>>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to hold states accountable when >>>> they >>>> >>>>>> act >>>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, including by taking measures that are >>>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with international law. There must be >>>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in cyberspace. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> We call on all states to support the evolving framework and to >>>> join >>>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater accountability and stability in >>>> cyberspace. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> End Text >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> For further information, please contact the Office of the >>>> Coordinator >>>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at SCCI_Press at state.gov. >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are interested in discussing the >>>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small working group who has the >>>> capacity to >>>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the session in an inclusive way. If >>>> you're >>>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, if you could email Bruna and I >>>> >>>>>>> we'll >>>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to support the organisation of the >>>> event. >>>> >>>>>>> The >>>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with everyone once we have some >>>> initial >>>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've been hoping for some time that >>>> more >>>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG community would see the value in >>>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>>> >>>>>>>> climate change and sustainability as it relates to our work. >>>> Indeed, >>>> >>>>>>>> many >>>> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives are working on it, albeit >>>> across >>>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and it's not just data centers, it's >>>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can think of as it relates to >>>> technology. >>>> >>>>>>>> While >>>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at least tries) to limit itself >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or what's *on* the Internet, the >>>> fact >>>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that the IG community could address >>>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>>> >>>>>>>> I organised, for >>>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really spearheading this at the >>>> moment. I >>>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join with them in support to >>>> address how >>>> >>>>>>>> climate >>>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, at the very core, human rights >>>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. Instead of briefing everyone on >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a webinar to anyone interested about >>>> the >>>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also written extensively about it). >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC and leave the CS pre-event to >>>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that isn't covered at all by the IGF >>>> (the >>>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow focus this year, to put it >>>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a discussion on climate change and >>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day zero meeting. This is something >>>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread set at NCSG mailing list, but >>>> there >>>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to facilitate a discussion on these lines >>>> at >>>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy outcome that would look to the >>>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia and @Nick Shorey Lists >>>> >>>>>>>>> have been starting this conversation >>>> at the >>>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am cc'ing them here! >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>>> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of ethics in a globally connected >>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right action is never out of fashion , >>>> right >>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is good risk management … right >>>> attitude >>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion for human care …. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ >>>> ‎PDT, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending yet, I will like to be part >>>> of the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber Crime >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing Economies and Role of Civil Society." >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here about planning one of the civil >>>> society >>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. It's called "Civil society >>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners Digital)" in the schedule but it is >>>> *not >>>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied for it, that's all. It's an >>>> event >>>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and I would suggest that members >>>> of IGC >>>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in shaping its agenda. It's been moved >>>> to >>>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a request from the IGF >>>> Secretariat. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the sidelines of RightsCon earlier >>>> this >>>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the event could focus on sharing >>>> updates on >>>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps planning for how to input into >>>> them >>>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First Committee processes on cyber >>>> and >>>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any matters pertaining to the IGC. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful if you could share your views >>>> on the >>>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums should we discuss at the civil >>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss any topics related to IGC >>>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these topics (presentations, or just >>>> open >>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind we have only 2 hours? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like to see from the pre-event? >>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be involved in planning the event (this >>>> will >>>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few hours over the next two >>>> months, I >>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you could let me know if you're >>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is dependent on funding for many of >>>> us >>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that would be great. >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you! >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>> E9E2 >>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> --- >>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> -- >>>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication >>>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >>>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >>>> >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>>> >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma >>>> parole >>>> >>>>> est >>>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> --- >>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>>>> List help: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Peter Micek >>>> >>>> General Counsel >>>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> , >>>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------ >>>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>> *, >>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> >>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>> < >>>> >>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >>>> > >>>> >>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>> Member. UN IGF MAG >>>> Member >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Micek >>> General Counsel >>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>> >>> Pronouns: He/Him >>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>> >>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>> , >>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> -- >> Verónica Ferrari >> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 5 23:26:10 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Hello from your co-cos In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21663943.184678.1573014370432@mail.yahoo.com> Dear Sheetal and Bruna, Thanking you for conducting the Survey (with the IGC Members) to identify the priority of the important tasks and actionable items for the organization of IGC. Revision of the Charter, CS representation & engagement in discussion with at key IG Forums, supporting statement on HLP Report, annual meeting are important areas to be considered on priority. I will arrange to fill up survey very soon. (However, can someone submit multiple copies to add further suggestions, using same link and identifying same name?) Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah On Thursday, 31 October 2019, 23:32:19 GMT+5, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, I hope everyone is well. I'm writing here with a few updates from our end. First, we are in the process of organising the day 0 event at the IGF. There is a dedicated thread for this, called "IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation" where next week I will follow up with more information/requests for support. Thanks to those who have already inputted and volunteered to help on the day! Second, very few people were available for an information-sharing call so that didn't happen. Instead, I have put together a survey, drawing on an email Salanieta sent around a couple of weeks ago, and where you can share your ideas on what IGC should be prioritising over the next 12 months and also what you would find useful in terms of internal communications. The survey is only 8 questions long and won't take more than 5-10 minutes of your time. It will help us shape our priorities and feed into the day 0 event so please do fill it out by 06 November: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/92WS6TN Third, the tech team is meeting online next week to discuss priorities and I will update you following our call with any relevant information. Finally, you will shortly be receiving an email regarding the "appeals team process" from Bruna, so keep an eye out for that! As ever, any questions - let us know! BestSheetal. | | | On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 13:47, Sheetal Kumar wrote: Dear all, Hello from your co-cos! In case you're wondering what we're up to...Bruna and I are prioritising  the following activities over the next few weeks: - Organising the day 0 event (November 25th) at the global IGF in Berlin - Update: There is a dedicated thread for organising the civil society pre-event which has been set up, and we're currently discussing what could be on the agenda. We'll return to you soon with some ideas for your feedback and the broader involvement of everyone on the list so that everyone can help shape the event! - Setting up an appeals team - Update: You'll be receiving an email soon from Bruna about the process for setting up and selecting an appeals team, and a 'Nomcom' as part of that. We will need volunteers so please look out for this email! - Information sharing call - Update: We were thinking of having a bi-monthly catch up call with everyone to share information on what's happening with IGC. In particular, this will be an opportunity to ask questions, check in with what's going on on the list and make suggestions. We wanted to try the idea out at first with a call at the end of this  month. Please fill in the doodle: https://www.doodle.com/poll/bnza3qxdw89w8cee Note, the doodle is timezone enabled and I am aware that the times indicated do not work for everyone, so if you have any ideas of how we can work around this going forward, particularly if we have these calls on a regular basis do let us know! - Technical aspects (website, list etc) - Update: We'll be in touch next week with those who have been involved in running the technical aspects of IGC in the past to make sure everyone who has been involved is happy to continue in their current roles/how responsibilities can be allocated going forward. Should you have any questions at all please don't hesitate to let us know. BestBruna & Sheetal -- Sheetal KumarProgramme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -- Sheetal KumarProgramme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITALSecond Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JLT: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 6 03:22:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 09:22:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear Sheetal, all: Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and you too Bruna). I'm sorry I can't volunteer to facilitate the sustainable development group, but I have another event that begins about 30 minutes after the IGC session (this year's Day 0 is crazy). Best, -Michael On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is great! Please > RSVP here if you haven't already done so: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. > > However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for the break-out > group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is definitely an important area > but if we can't find a facilitator for the session we will unfortunately > have to drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places at the > same time :) As such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested in > facilitating that session. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear Veronica, all, >> >> Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! I'll note that down. >> >> Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up this RSVP (thanks >> Imran)! >> >> Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. The event will be >> held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. >> >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica wrote: >> >>> >>> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for putting it together. >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the list and APC as a >>> Coordinator at the Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be participating >>> in the meeting and happy to help with the sessions on Content Moderation >>> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, >>> if needed. >>> >>> *Best regards. ** Verónica * >>> >>> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is "Pre-event 43: Civil >>> Society Coordination Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November 25 >>> from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes instead of initiatives, it was >>> suggested elsewhere that we should try and develop a response to the HLPDC >>> report in some way so that's why I put that down as a focus. >>> >>> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the input so far, >>> highlighting the changes in light yellow. >>> >>> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each session that would be >>> great :) - any takers? >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> *---------------------------------------* >>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>> >>> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >>> >>> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>> Issues (six issues) >>> >>> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the >>> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, >>> possible messages) >>> - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level >>> Panel on Digital Cooperation) >>> - Cybercrime >>> - Sustainable Development >>> - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >>> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace (w/ focus on >>> 1st Committee) >>> - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >>> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>> discussion >>> >>> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>> necessitate working together >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes. >>>> >>>> What is the goal and scope of the ethics discussion? I note the >>>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >>>> discussion. If this was meant to cover the discussion of fairness and >>>> ethics in AI, might it not be better to have a 'Emerging Technologies' >>>> section, where we could talk of the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >>>> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to human rights? >>>> >>>> Just on its face, I would hate to see the civil society agenda mainly >>>> discussing emerging technologies through a lens of 'ethics.' >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène Tungali >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>>>> >>>>> My apologies for being silent on this, so many things going on in my >>>>> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, Sheetal, which looks great to >>>>> me. >>>>> >>>>> I want to echo and support the inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>>>> think make sense. >>>>> >>>>> I believe our session is the following, as seen on the agenda, right? >>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>>>> >>>>> If that's the case, the time hasn't changed according to what you said >>>>> in your original email? Please do help clarify. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Arsene >>>>> >>>>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke : >>>>> > Hi Sheetal >>>>> > This looks good as I hope the cybercrime session will be able to >>>>> address >>>>> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>>>> particularly. >>>>> > Weldone. >>>>> > ____ >>>>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>>>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>>>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>>>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>>>> > ; ITREALMS >>>>> > , NaijaAgroNet >>>>> > ) >>>>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>>>> Oshodi-Lagos >>>>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>>>> > >>>>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>>>> > * >>>>> > JOIN us!! >>>>> > >>>>> > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society >>>>> (ACSIS >>>>> > ) >>>>> > _________________________________________________________________ >>>>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>>>> attachments >>>>> > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>>>> intended >>>>> > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept >>>>> legal >>>>> > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >>>>> intended >>>>> > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document >>>>> and do >>>>> > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor >>>>> make >>>>> > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Please find below the suggestions so far discussed among IGC >>>>> members for >>>>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I suggest for the second part that we >>>>> >> identify volunteers for each of the six issue areas to facilitate >>>>> the >>>>> >> discussion. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> It would be great to get your views on the below over the coming >>>>> days: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - What do you think of the proposed format? >>>>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to facilitate any of the issue area >>>>> >> discussions in part 2? >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>> >> Best >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Sheetal. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >> >>>>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>> >> Issues (six issues) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines >>>>> the >>>>> >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >>>>> >> discussed, >>>>> >> possible messages) >>>>> >> - High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>>>> >> - Cybercrime >>>>> >> - Ethics >>>>> >> - Sustainable Development >>>>> >> - Christchurch call >>>>> >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>>>> >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>> discussion >>>>> >> >>>>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>> >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>> >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>> >> necessitate >>>>> >> working together >>>>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael J. Oghia < >>>>> mike.oghia at gmail.com> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to argue *against* speaking >>>>> about >>>>> >>> climate change and sustainability, so if people really want to >>>>> discuss >>>>> >>> that >>>>> >>> then great! >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. I'd be happy to do a webinar at >>>>> some >>>>> >>> point (I already have the presentation and have delivered it >>>>> before). >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit of this topic. Let's see what >>>>> >>> others say, but know that I am flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best, >>>>> >>> -Michael >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Shorey >>>> > >>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and I’m excited to read all the >>>>> >>>> interesting topics and activity that’s happening here! >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on sustainability, I politely disagree >>>>> with >>>>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* have an agenda item on this >>>>> topic, if >>>>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> My reason being is that it appears there is a broad interest in >>>>> this >>>>> >>>> topic, but that many people are not actually aware of all the >>>>> activity >>>>> >>>> that >>>>> >>>> is going on, in particular the work that IRPC has been doing. >>>>> From a >>>>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked through the IGF schedule, it >>>>> was not >>>>> >>>> at >>>>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session would cover climate change. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, so I reckon a brief agenda >>>>> item - >>>>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an overview of the work that’s been >>>>> >>>> taking >>>>> >>>> place and direct people where to engage - would be an excellent >>>>> way to >>>>> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell of interest, and compliment >>>>> the >>>>> >>>> work >>>>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more people into the fold and >>>>> amplifying >>>>> >>>> the >>>>> >>>> message. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow this up with a webinar or >>>>> >>>> something, >>>>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real value to a brief agenda item >>>>> >>>> introducing the topic and current activities, and doing so in >>>>> person to >>>>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so people can put a face to a name >>>>> and have >>>>> >>>> someone they can also chat to during the margins of the event. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Nick >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>>>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>>>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>>>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>>>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>>>> >>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>>>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I would like to be involved in the program and share my >>>>> experiences. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Arzak >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>>> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Peter Micek < >>>>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org> >>>>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:27:51 PM >>>>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL ; Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>; Michael J. Oghia ; >>>>> >>>> governance ; Nick Shorey Lists < >>>>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com>; Naman Aggarwal >>>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: >>>>> planning >>>>> >>>> and preparation >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes of the Day 0 meeting to >>>>> discuss >>>>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on the new #WhyID coalition and >>>>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that digital ID programs must >>>>> respect >>>>> >>>> good >>>>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity norms. These >>>>> mandatory ID >>>>> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed without a chance for civil >>>>> society >>>>> >>>> input, and before asking whether and why we need them. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the campaign, ping Naman Aggarwal >>>>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>> Peter >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kossi Amessinou < >>>>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> This charter >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/numerique/Charte-pour-un-internet-libre-et-sur.pdf >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> is important for all but we can put also the african declaration >>>>> (FR >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/African-Declaration-French-FINAL.pdf >>>>> >, >>>>> >>>>> EN >>>>> >>>>> < >>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf >>>>> >) >>>>> >>>>> on the table. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, Nnenna Nwakanma < >>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel Report on Digital Cooperation >>>>> should >>>>> >>>>>> be on the agenda. Not just feedback on the report, but >>>>> anticipating >>>>> >>>>>> CS >>>>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>>>> >>>>>> Following the Christchurch call a Charter >>>>> >>>>>> < >>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/numerique/charte-pour-internet-libre-ouvert-et-sur >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>>> was launched. I have also copied and posted what I think is an >>>>> >>>>>> important >>>>> >>>>>> Declaration of key governments. Simply put, we need to >>>>> discuss how >>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>> >>>>>> respond to internet governance legislation and regulatory moves >>>>> >>>>>> across the >>>>> >>>>>> world. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned, I will be in Berlin >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> N >>>>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint statement affirmed by these >>>>> countries: >>>>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, >>>>> Denmark, >>>>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>>>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, >>>>> Latvia, >>>>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>>>> Republic >>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, >>>>> and the >>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>> >>>>>> States. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >>>>> Cyberspace >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Information technology is transforming modern life, driving >>>>> >>>>>> innovation >>>>> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the sharing of ideas, of >>>>> cultures, and >>>>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its benefits have brought the global >>>>> >>>>>> community >>>>> >>>>>> closer together than ever before in history. Even as we >>>>> recognize the >>>>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace has brought to our citizens and >>>>> strive >>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue to reap its benefits, a >>>>> challenge to >>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and non-state actors are using >>>>> cyberspace >>>>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for irresponsible behavior from >>>>> which to >>>>> >>>>>> target >>>>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our citizens, undermine democracies >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> international institutions and organizations, and undercut fair >>>>> >>>>>> competition >>>>> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing ideas when they cannot create >>>>> them. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the international community has made >>>>> clear that >>>>> >>>>>> the international rules-based order should guide state behavior >>>>> in >>>>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have increasingly coalesced around >>>>> an >>>>> >>>>>> evolving >>>>> >>>>>> framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace >>>>> (framework), >>>>> >>>>>> which >>>>> >>>>>> supports the international rules-based order, affirms the >>>>> >>>>>> applicability of >>>>> >>>>>> international law to state-on-state behavior, adherence to >>>>> voluntary >>>>> >>>>>> norms >>>>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in peacetime, and the development >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> implementation of practical confidence building measures to help >>>>> >>>>>> reduce the >>>>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents. All members of >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed this >>>>> framework, >>>>> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN Groups of Governmental >>>>> Experts >>>>> >>>>>> reports >>>>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to uphold the international >>>>> rules-based >>>>> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, implementation, and further >>>>> >>>>>> development, >>>>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN negotiations of the Open Ended >>>>> Working >>>>> >>>>>> Group >>>>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. We support targeted >>>>> cybersecurity >>>>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that all responsible states can >>>>> implement >>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>> framework and better protect their networks from significant >>>>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>>>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise destabilizing cyber activity. We >>>>> reiterate >>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be respected and protected by states >>>>> >>>>>> online, as >>>>> >>>>>> well as offline, including when addressing cybersecurity. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold the international rules-based >>>>> >>>>>> order, >>>>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in safeguarding the benefits of a free, >>>>> open, >>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future generations. When necessary, we >>>>> will >>>>> >>>>>> work >>>>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to hold states accountable when >>>>> they >>>>> >>>>>> act >>>>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, including by taking measures that >>>>> are >>>>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with international law. There must be >>>>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in cyberspace. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> We call on all states to support the evolving framework and to >>>>> join >>>>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater accountability and stability in >>>>> cyberspace. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> End Text >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> For further information, please contact the Office of the >>>>> Coordinator >>>>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at SCCI_Press at state.gov. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are interested in discussing the >>>>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small working group who has the >>>>> capacity to >>>>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the session in an inclusive way. If >>>>> you're >>>>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, if you could email Bruna and >>>>> I >>>>> >>>>>>> we'll >>>>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to support the organisation of the >>>>> event. >>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with everyone once we have some >>>>> initial >>>>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>>>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've been hoping for some time that >>>>> more >>>>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG community would see the value in >>>>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>>>> >>>>>>>> climate change and sustainability as it relates to our work. >>>>> Indeed, >>>>> >>>>>>>> many >>>>> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives are working on it, albeit >>>>> across >>>>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>>>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and it's not just data centers, it's >>>>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can think of as it relates to >>>>> technology. >>>>> >>>>>>>> While >>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at least tries) to limit itself >>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or what's *on* the Internet, the >>>>> fact >>>>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that the IG community could address >>>>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>>>> >>>>>>>> I organised, for >>>>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really spearheading this at the >>>>> moment. I >>>>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join with them in support to >>>>> address how >>>>> >>>>>>>> climate >>>>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, at the very core, human rights >>>>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>>>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. Instead of briefing everyone on >>>>> the >>>>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>>>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a webinar to anyone interested >>>>> about the >>>>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also written extensively about it). >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC and leave the CS pre-event to >>>>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that isn't covered at all by the >>>>> IGF (the >>>>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow focus this year, to put it >>>>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a discussion on climate change >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day zero meeting. This is >>>>> something >>>>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>>>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread set at NCSG mailing list, >>>>> but there >>>>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to facilitate a discussion on these >>>>> lines at >>>>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>>>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy outcome that would look to the >>>>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia and @Nick Shorey Lists >>>>> >>>>>>>>> have been starting this conversation >>>>> at the >>>>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am cc'ing them here! >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>>>> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of ethics in a globally >>>>> connected >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right action is never out of fashion , >>>>> right >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is good risk management … right >>>>> attitude >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion for human care …. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ >>>>> ‎PDT, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending yet, I will like to be part >>>>> of the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber >>>>> Crime and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing Economies and Role of Civil Society." >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here about planning one of the civil >>>>> society >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. It's called "Civil society >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners Digital)" in the schedule but it >>>>> is *not >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied for it, that's all. It's an >>>>> event >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and I would suggest that members >>>>> of IGC >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in shaping its agenda. It's been >>>>> moved to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a request from the IGF >>>>> Secretariat. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the sidelines of RightsCon earlier >>>>> this >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the event could focus on sharing >>>>> updates on >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps planning for how to input into >>>>> them >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First Committee processes on cyber >>>>> and >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any matters pertaining to the IGC. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful if you could share your views >>>>> on the >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums should we discuss at the civil >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss any topics related to IGC >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these topics (presentations, or >>>>> just open >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind we have only 2 hours? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like to see from the pre-event? >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be involved in planning the event (this >>>>> will >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few hours over the next two >>>>> months, I >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you could let me know if you're >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is dependent on funding for many >>>>> of us >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that would be great. >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>> E9E2 >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>> E9E2 >>>>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>>>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication >>>>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>>>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>>>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >>>>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>>>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>>>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >>>>> >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>>>> >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma >>>>> parole >>>>> >>>>> est >>>>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> -- >>>>> >>>> Peter Micek >>>>> >>>> General Counsel >>>>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> , >>>>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>> 0603 >>>>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------------------ >>>>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>> *, >>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>> >>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>>> < >>>>> >>>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>>> Member. UN IGF MAG >>>>> Member >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Peter Micek >>>> General Counsel >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>> , >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> -- >>> Verónica Ferrari >>> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >>> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Nov 7 18:08:03 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 18:08:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST THU-SAT: Who Owns the World? The State of Platform Cooperativism Message-ID: This is the annual conference of platform cooperatives which are defined as "*businesses that use a website, mobile app, or protocol to sell goods or services while relying on democratic decision-making and shared ownership of the platform by workers and users."* [image: livestream] On *Thursday-Saturday November 7-9 2019* *Who Owns the World? * convenes one hundred fifty speakers from over thirty countries in NYC to meet each other, co-design, and learn about topics such as worker power in the platform economy, antitrust, misogyny and racism in co-ops, ecological sustainability, best practices for cooperation including the allocation of startup funding, the potential of platform co-ops for data trusts, data co-ops, new models for distributed governance, and data sovereignty. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel .* *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/platformcoop2019 * *PROGRAM: https://platform.coop/events/conference-2019/program/ * *LIVESTREAM SCHEDULE* *THU 11/7 6PM-8PM 55W13 PLENARY* *FRI 11/8 9:30AM-11:30AM PLENARY* *3:00PM-5:00PM TOWN HALL 1* *5:30PM-9:30PM PLENARY* *SAT 11/9 9:00AM-1:15PM PLENARY* *2:45PM-5:30PM TOWN HALL 1* *(other Town Halls will be recorded & streamed later)* *TWITTER: #cooperatorsunite @pccglobal* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11492/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Nov 1 22:56:16 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 02:56:16 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: Ian, David, Tamir: Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as "in their respective roles" and "equal footing" arose. In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, they believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role of civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had something to do with local communities. The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true of those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document written entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had different "roles." And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could discuss - but _not_ decide - issues on an "equal footing." The division of labor called for by "in their respective roles" never really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role of governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in things like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private sector as influential as governments. Internet governance is transnational and the "public" it governs is transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on any rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully integrated with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system such as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten the global compatibility of the internet. The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether "multistakeholder governance" or "equal footing" is needed or works at the _national_ level kind of misses the point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking place) around _global_ internet governance. Of course at the national level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power sharing arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the national level. The reason we've moved away from that for global IG is because there is no global sovereign. These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? How about "in their respective roles"? David On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? Ian --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Nov 8 17:43:09 2019 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2019 17:43:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca> Message-ID: The salient word here, it seems, is "legitimate." Such as, where is the legitimacy for 'civil society,' for instance for ourselves here in this discussion? In a world where 7,000,000,000+ are civil society, those who speak up in its name are an almost infinitesimally small percentage. From where does their legitimacy obtain? Of course, the whole point of a(n actually) functioning democracy is the _legitimate_ representation, in the end, of very large numbers of civil society / of citizens. That said, it is with (great) appreciation, to read the two below. Indeed, the successful functioning of a society, certainly one governing itself democratically, is the 'division of labor' amongst all involved. Technical, scientific, academic, business, government ... in the rhyme, the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker ... Where lawful requirements are the responsibility of elected officials. And where (now saying for the third time) intimate engagement in that governing process (in respective roles) by the whole society is an absolute requirement for democracy actually to work. As artfully described in some of the below. (Our own (intellectual) history here? The sage Santayana reminded us that "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.") Does it all work seamlessly? That is hardly even a serious question ... But, we can see – beyond outcroppings of power struggles – the good outcome lies in cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure. David > On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Tamir wrote: > > Hi all, > > I would just second what a number of folks have said, which is that while I respect and appreciate the historical origins, I think there are national contexts in which multi-stakeholder Internet policy making can be both appropriate and legitimate. > > Certainly the cross-territorial nature of the Internet is one of the earliest and most enduring challenges to coordinated policy-making in this space, and multi-stakeholder policy making is an important component in trying to address that, but there are other recurring challenges such as the need for flexible policies that don't necessarily align 100% with current law or should not be applied with the rigour of law, or where the technical nature of the problem requires more nuanced engagement than you can get in some traditional government-led settings. > > I would say the same for the 'in their respective roles' vs 'on equal footing' debate.... There's certainly going to be situations where you need a government(s) led process, particularly where implementation relies on entities voluntarily adopting measures that are counter to their own interests (which is something ICANN has at least made an attempt to get around). But in other contexts, having a venue where government actors can provide the government perspective but not have the last say can also lead to effective and legitimate outcomes, including at the national level. > > I think it's an enduring irony that in these contexts it's still civil society, rather than governments, who often ends up representing individual interests most aggressively, but that does still seem to be the prevailing tendency.... > > Best, > Tamir > > On 2019-11-03 8:13 p.m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >> Hi, >> >> you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf >> p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the conclusions, >> >> "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other factors, the “bindingness” of the agreements. Organizations such as ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG may operate with simpler rule books. >> >> The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they will have available for their core function." >> >> A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears and Kasper have a nice paper out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development which applies to the national level. >> >> It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades. >> >> Yours, >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >> >> >> >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >> Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net ] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] >> Enviado el: domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12 >> Hasta: governance >> Asunto: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >> >> Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. >> >> I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. >> >> Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Andrés Piazza" > >> To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com >> Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com ; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > >> Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >> >>> Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR >>> >>> Andrés >>> >>> El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (>) escribió: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. >>> >>> In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process >>> but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and >>> send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even >>> possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an >>> input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. >>> >>> Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together >>> last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion >>> at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how >>> we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ >>> >>> But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken >>> more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby >>> legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit >>> more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their >>> inputs are being taken seriously. >>> >>> Hope this is helpful. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Arsene >>> >>> 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >>> >: >>> > Ian, >>> > >>> > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to >>> > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good >>> > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more >>> > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National >>> > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems >>> > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over >>> > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon >>> > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to >>> > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the >>> > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? >>> > >>> > Sivasubramanian M >>> > >>> > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >>> >> PrepCom >>> >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >>> >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >>> >> >>> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >>> >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want >>> >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they >>> >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s >>> >> been >>> >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >>> >> indeed. >>> >> >>> >> Izumi >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Chipping in…. >>> >>> >>> >>> “in their respective roles” >>> >>> >>> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >>> >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>> >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>> >>> as >>> >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>> >>> >>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >>> >>> >>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>> >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>> >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>> >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>> >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>> >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>> >>> >>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>> >>> >>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>> >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>> >>> Shope-Mafole >, then >>> >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>> >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>> >>> someone >>> >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>> >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>> >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>> >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>> >>> sitting >>> >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>> >>> work >>> >>> for the government?) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>> >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >>> >>> demanding >>> >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>> >>> of >>> >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>> >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>> >>> calling >>> >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>> >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>> >>> the >>> >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>> >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>> >>> >*. >>> >>> The court threw out the two cases >>> >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>> >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>> >>> a >>> >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *> on behalf of "Mueller, >>> >>> Milton L" > >>> >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>> >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>> >>> *To: *governance > >>> >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>> >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>> >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>> >>> they >>> >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>> >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>> >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>> >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>> >>> of >>> >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>> >>> something >>> >>> to do with local communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>> >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>> >>> of >>> >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>> >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>> >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>> >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>> >>> written >>> >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>> >>> different >>> >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>> >>> could >>> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >>> >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>> >>> of >>> >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>> >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>> >>> things >>> >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>> >>> sector >>> >>> as influential as governments. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >>> >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>> >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>> >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>> >>> any >>> >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>> >>> integrated >>> >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>> >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>> >>> such >>> >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>> >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>> >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>> >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>> >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >>> >>> “equal >>> >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>> >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>> >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>> >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>> >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>> >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>> >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>> >>> sharing >>> >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>> >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >>> >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>> >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>> >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net > *On Behalf Of * >>> >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>> >>> *To:* governance > >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>> >>> of >>> >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>> >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>> >>> that. >>> >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> To unsubscribe: >>> >>> >> >>> >>> List help: > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> >>> List help: > >>> >>> >>> >> -- >>> >> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> >> Japan >>> >> www.anr.org >>> >> --- >>> >> To unsubscribe: > >>> >> List help: > >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> **Arsène Tungali* >* >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>> >*, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl >*, >>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>> < >>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > >>> >>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>> > Member. UN IGF MAG >>> > Member >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Andrés Piazza >>> @andrespiazza >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > -- >  > Tamir Israel > Staff Lawyer > > Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) > University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section > 57 Louis Pasteur Street > Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5 > ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914 > Fax: +1 613-562-5417 > PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 > PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 > > ♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apisan at unam.mx Fri Nov 8 21:45:18 2019 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 02:45:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca>, Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E1F8@MAILBOX04.unam.local> David, to quote from the end of your note: "cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure." a. cooperative effort among the parts is what multistakeholder processes are about. And no, you can't do away with the struggle for power, so that's where the institutional design comes in, including components like structures, weighting votes, mechanisms for consensus, stakeholder identification and grouping, transparency about interests, and so on. b. the best of these efforts do openly acknowledge their democratic deficits, if they have them, and work to reduce them. Depending on issue and circumstances this may mean outreach to include more parties, depending on third parties as backstops or overseers, and so on. c. in most cases in which multistakeholder mechanisms have arisen, the name "multistakeholder" hadn't even been invented when they started. They are ages old. Look at Ostrom for more. d. in most cases, waiting for government is not an option. Problemes require solutions. e. in many cases, the fine-grained nature of the issue requires faster and, ahem, more fine-grained mechanisms and action. f. about 2/3 of humankind is not in agreement with their government, especially in countries where elections do not take place or are totally distorted or captured. Should we tell all those people to wait for the fall of their "Iron Curtains", instead of actually doing something to bring them down, and, meanwhile, work across them? e. for issues related to advanced science (including social science) and technology, governments in developing countries don't have the knowledge, staff, money and other resources, understanding, and political will to even start studying them (and/or therefore rely on ITU and similar pabulum, spoon-fed to them and in exchange for votes.) We positively crossed many barriers thanks to multistakeholder mecahnisms. Not only that: we were able to shape them. Had we waited for our governments, the whole system would have been set up purely by powerful US-based corporations. I tend to intuit that this would not have been your preferred result. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu [david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu] Enviado el: viernes, 08 de noviembre de 2019 16:43 Hasta: governance Asunto: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? The salient word here, it seems, is "legitimate." Such as, where is the legitimacy for 'civil society,' for instance for ourselves here in this discussion? In a world where 7,000,000,000+ are civil society, those who speak up in its name are an almost infinitesimally small percentage. From where does their legitimacy obtain? Of course, the whole point of a(n actually) functioning democracy is the _legitimate_ representation, in the end, of very large numbers of civil society / of citizens. That said, it is with (great) appreciation, to read the two below. Indeed, the successful functioning of a society, certainly one governing itself democratically, is the 'division of labor' amongst all involved. Technical, scientific, academic, business, government ... in the rhyme, the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker ... Where lawful requirements are the responsibility of elected officials. And where (now saying for the third time) intimate engagement in that governing process (in respective roles) by the whole society is an absolute requirement for democracy actually to work. As artfully described in some of the below. (Our own (intellectual) history here? The sage Santayana reminded us that "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.") Does it all work seamlessly? That is hardly even a serious question ... But, we can see – beyond outcroppings of power struggles – the good outcome lies in cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure. David On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Tamir > wrote: Hi all, I would just second what a number of folks have said, which is that while I respect and appreciate the historical origins, I think there are national contexts in which multi-stakeholder Internet policy making can be both appropriate and legitimate. Certainly the cross-territorial nature of the Internet is one of the earliest and most enduring challenges to coordinated policy-making in this space, and multi-stakeholder policy making is an important component in trying to address that, but there are other recurring challenges such as the need for flexible policies that don't necessarily align 100% with current law or should not be applied with the rigour of law, or where the technical nature of the problem requires more nuanced engagement than you can get in some traditional government-led settings. I would say the same for the 'in their respective roles' vs 'on equal footing' debate.... There's certainly going to be situations where you need a government(s) led process, particularly where implementation relies on entities voluntarily adopting measures that are counter to their own interests (which is something ICANN has at least made an attempt to get around). But in other contexts, having a venue where government actors can provide the government perspective but not have the last say can also lead to effective and legitimate outcomes, including at the national level. I think it's an enduring irony that in these contexts it's still civil society, rather than governments, who often ends up representing individual interests most aggressively, but that does still seem to be the prevailing tendency.... Best, Tamir On 2019-11-03 8:13 p.m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: Hi, you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdfhttps://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the conclusions, "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other factors, the “bindingness” of the agreements. Organizations such as ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG may operate with simpler rule books. The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they will have available for their core function." A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears and Kasper have a nice paper out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-developmenthttps://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development which applies to the national level. It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12 Hasta: governance Asunto: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Andrés Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR Andrés El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (>) escribió: Hi all, This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their inputs are being taken seriously. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Arsene 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >: > Ian, > > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > wrote: > >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> PrepCom >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s >> been >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >> indeed. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> Chipping in…. >>> >>> “in their respective roles” >>> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>> as >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>> Shope-Mafole , then >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>> someone >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>> sitting >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>> work >>> for the government?) >>> >>> >>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >>> demanding >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>> of >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>> calling >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>> the >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>> *. >>> The court threw out the two cases >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>> . >>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>> a >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *> on behalf of "Mueller, >>> Milton L" > >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>> *To: *governance > >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>> they >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>> of >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>> something >>> to do with local communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>> of >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>> written >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>> different >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>> could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>> of >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>> things >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>> sector >>> as influential as governments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>> any >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>> integrated >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>> such >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >>> “equal >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>> sharing >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>> >>> >>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>> *To:* governance > >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>> of >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>> that. >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >*, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Andrés Piazza @andrespiazza --- To unsubscribe: List help: --  Tamir Israel Staff Lawyer Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section 57 Louis Pasteur Street Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5 ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914 Fax: +1 613-562-5417 PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 ♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 9 08:18:05 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 21:18:05 +0800 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? Message-ID: Dear All, I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and technology design. Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above. Thanks in advance! Mawaki ==================================== Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 ==================================== -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sat Nov 9 09:47:00 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 16:47:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Dear All, > > I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance > scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put > out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that > technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values > (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we > want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the > work of technical standards development and technology design.  > > Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could > anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has > become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo > statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above. > > Thanks in advance! > > Mawaki  > > > ==================================== > Mawaki Chango, PhD                   > Founder & CEO, > DigiLexis Consulting > Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis  > Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango > Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 > ==================================== > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 9 10:05:09 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 23:05:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement more than it actually holds. Mawaki On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en > > > https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ > > Anriette > > ----------------------------- > > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org > > On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > Dear All, > > I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal > (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement > that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely > "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should > be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values > need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and > technology design. > > Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone > point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? > As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't > appear to specifically address the issue above. > > Thanks in advance! > > Mawaki > > > ==================================== > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder & CEO, > DigiLexis Consulting > Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis > Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango > Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 > ==================================== > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sat Nov 9 14:32:19 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 21:32:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Remembering Aaron Swartz Message-ID: <2f5af773-8754-1466-6afe-470d6af207fb@apc.org> How many of you remember Aaron Swartz? Time passes so quickly. I was happy to see that the Internet Archive is celebrating his work on freedom of information in a very innovative way. https://blog.archive.org/2019/11/06/7th-annual-aaron-swartz-day-at-the-internet-archive/ For those that do not know who he was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz Anriette -- ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 9 20:49:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 01:49:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remembering Aaron Swartz In-Reply-To: <2f5af773-8754-1466-6afe-470d6af207fb@apc.org> References: <2f5af773-8754-1466-6afe-470d6af207fb@apc.org> Message-ID: I was just thinking of him 3 weeks ago. Glad to see he is remembered. Thanks Anriette. On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 7:33 pm Anriette Esterhuysen, wrote: > How many of you remember Aaron Swartz? Time passes so quickly. I was > happy to see that the Internet Archive is celebrating his work on > freedom of information in a very innovative way. > > > https://blog.archive.org/2019/11/06/7th-annual-aaron-swartz-day-at-the-internet-archive/ > > For those that do not know who he was: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz > > Anriette > > -- > ----------------------------- > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic > planning > Association for Progressive Communications > apc.org > afrisig.org > anriette at apc.org > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 10 04:35:32 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 17:35:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.) Thanks, Mawaki On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement > more than it actually holds. > > Mawaki > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > >> Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en >> >> >> https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ >> >> Anriette >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >> >> On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal >> (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement >> that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely >> "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should >> be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values >> need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and >> technology design. >> >> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone >> point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? >> As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't >> appear to specifically address the issue above. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ==================================== >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> Founder & CEO, >> DigiLexis Consulting >> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis >> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >> ==================================== >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Sun Nov 10 08:07:37 2019 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 15:07:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49231026-33e8-7836-5f48-40e202de0c28@apc.org> Interesting question, Mawaki. Actually the first effort to look into technical design and protocols and human rights pre-dates the Snowden revelations and the Montevideo Statement. It was written by APC's Joy Liddicoat and Avri Doria in 2012, commissioned by Markus Kummer who was then at ISOC, with input from another ISOC's human rights lead at the time, Nicolas Seidler. https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/ISSUE_human_rights_2.pdf Someone who follows the work at the IETF and other technical spaces should update us on what is happening there. Quite a lot as far as I know, but not without contestation. There has also been substantial progress in ICANN, from the human rights impact assessment to the work on the right to privacy (not new but given prominence by the GDPR) and geographic domain names. So good to get an update on this too and I am sure there are people on the list who can  brief us. What I have observed is that none of this work is easy, and it has to be done in a way that goes beyond just making people 'feel good' through superficial references to human rights and social inclusion. It takes hard work, working through contestation of interests from different interests groups. And most of all, it is not just about getting policy decisions approved - it takes ongoing implementation and application which requires time and resources. Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/11/10 11:35, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the > possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* > organizations on standard and protocol development as well as > technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in > the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, > there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human > rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such > language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible > before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.) > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this > Statement more than it actually holds. > > Mawaki > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen > > wrote: > > Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en > > https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ > > Anriette > > ----------------------------- > > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communications > apc.org > afrisig.org > anriette at apc.org > > On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing > List) wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA >> surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations >> got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize >> for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" >> with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think >> should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) >> and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of >> technical standards development and technology design.  >> >> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? >> Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever >> was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across >> the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to >> specifically address the issue above. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Mawaki  >> >> >> ==================================== >> Mawaki Chango, PhD                   >> Founder & CEO, >> DigiLexis Consulting >> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis  >> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >> ==================================== >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 10 20:50:51 2019 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 01:50:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E3F3@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Mawaki, this work has extended too far now to account for every part of it. The IETF started its work on "perpass" (pervasive passive surveillance, recognized as a threat) in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier. From it spawned several lines of work, both in the IETF and further out. Some of them were the strong move to encryption with TLS, the push by many organizations to only accept Web traffic with HTTPS, and all the way to the ongoing process regarding DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which encrypts DNS traffic so that even ISPs can't see it. You may be aware that there is a significant quid pro quo in network management and human rights when this is done. Mozilla is the most visible party engaging in favor of DoH at this time. Lots more is and has been done both at the standards and in the operational level. This is but a quick summary trying to bridge what is alreay more than six years. Much of it can be traced to the ISOC initiative Anriette has already written about. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Mawaki Chango [governance at lists.riseup.net] Enviado el: domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019 03:35 Hasta: governance; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org Asunto: Re: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.) Thanks, Mawaki On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement more than it actually holds. Mawaki On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ Anriette ----------------------------- Anriette Esterhuysen Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning Association for Progressive Communications apc.org afrisig.org anriette at apc.org On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: Dear All, I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and technology design. Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above. Thanks in advance! Mawaki ==================================== Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 ==================================== --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg Sat Nov 2 01:22:57 2019 From: TPHANG at ntu.edu.sg (Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 05:22:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Hi all. Chipping in…. “in their respective roles” It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised as having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could discuss – but _not_ decide – issues The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past imperfect) not enough for their bosses. > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private sector in internet related policy development, I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall Shope-Mafole, then Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which someone said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger sitting next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you work for the government?) This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters demanding S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter of the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy calling for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did the same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case. The court threw out the two cases https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case. There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had a satisfying lunch meeting. Regards, Ang Peng Hwa From: on behalf of "Mueller, Milton L" Reply-To: "Mueller, Milton L" Date: Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM To: governance Subject: RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Ian, David, Tamir: Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, they believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role of civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had something to do with local communities. The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true of those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document written entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had different “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could discuss – but _not_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role of governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in things like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private sector as influential as governments. Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on any rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully integrated with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system such as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten the global compatibility of the internet. The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or “equal footing” is needed or works at the _national_ level kind of misses the point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking place) around _global_ internet governance. Of course at the national level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power sharing arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is because there is no global sovereign. These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net On Behalf Of david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM To: governance Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? How about "in their respective roles"? David On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? Ian --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 10 21:52:04 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 10:52:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E3F3@MAILBOX04.unam.local> References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E3F3@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: Thanks Anriette and Alejandro for these summaries/ clarifications. @Anriette: As a matter of fact, I ran into this other paper by same authors when I was searching earlier this past week: https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Human20Rights20and20Internet20Protocols-20Comparing20Processes20and20Principles.pdf Not sure to what extent one is a version of, or evolved from, the other but I'll soon find out on my next flight in a few hours :) In any case, I am sure the question of the consideration of social values in tech design (including protocols and standards) is much older... As the titles of some academic journals may suggest. But as you perfectly understood, I wanted to find out the extent to which the reflection started long ago from the outside and in Joy & Avri's paper may now be shaping the tech work. @Alejandro: Good to know these ideas have pervaded the tech work to a point it might be challenging to track. I suspect that might be the object of a whole research project. Just noting that you wrote: "The IETF started its work... in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier." The fact is the NSA/ Snowden revelations also occurred in 2013. That may be coincidence but not evidence of a process starting way earlier. In any case, that's a point of detail, and again, thank you for the complement of information. Mawaki ==================================== Mawaki Chango, PhD Founder & Managing Director DigiLexis Consulting Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 ==================================== On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Mawaki, > > this work has extended too far now to account for every part of it. The > IETF started its work on "perpass" (pervasive passive surveillance, > recognized as a threat) in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to > attend to this risk started way earlier. From it spawned several lines of > work, both in the IETF and further out. Some of them were the strong move > to encryption with TLS, the push by many organizations to only accept Web > traffic with HTTPS, and all the way to the ongoing process regarding DNS > over HTTPS (DoH) which encrypts DNS traffic so that even ISPs can't see it. > You may be aware that there is a significant quid pro quo in network > management and human rights when this is done. Mozilla is the most visible > party engaging in favor of DoH at this time. > > Lots more is and has been done both at the standards and in the > operational level. This is but a quick summary trying to bridge what is > alreay more than six years. Much of it can be traced to the ISOC initiative > Anriette has already written about. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > ------------------------------ > *Desde:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net [ > governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Mawaki Chango [ > governance at lists.riseup.net] > *Enviado el:* domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019 03:35 > *Hasta:* governance; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > *Asunto:* Re: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social > responsibility" of technical design? > > The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the > possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* > organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology > design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the > technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs > addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not > sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and > whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or > the NSA surveillance scandal.) > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement >> more than it actually holds. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >>> Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en >>> >>> >>> https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> >>> Anriette Esterhuysen >>> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >>> Association for Progressive Communicationsapc.orgafrisig.organriette at apc.org >>> >>> On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal >>> (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement >>> that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely >>> "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should >>> be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values >>> need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and >>> technology design. >>> >>> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone >>> point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? >>> As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't >>> appear to specifically address the issue above. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Mawaki >>> >>> >>> ==================================== >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD >>> Founder & CEO, >>> DigiLexis Consulting >>> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis >>> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >>> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >>> ==================================== >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From richard at bennett.com Sun Nov 10 22:46:57 2019 From: richard at bennett.com (Richard Bennett) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 20:46:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E3F3@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: This kinda stuff looks like a lot of handwaving to me. The technical standards for the Internet do describe protocols for endpoint to endpoint communication, but that does not require endpoints to use their connections for any laudatory purpose. The standards also don’t constrain the organization of the Internet in terms of services, data centers, and financial models. By itself, standards are just words on a screen while the Internet is iron, fiber, silicon, and money. Human rights are also nothing without a legal regime that enforces them. The UDHR includes a section on artists’ rights that directly collides with certain expectations of Internet use; I don’t see any mention fo copyright enforcement in this paper. So we all have rights, but some rights are more worthy than others? I think it’s fundamentally misguided to try and design rights into a technical system. In practice, any network system can be used just as easily to protect rights as to violate them. Human rights and network design are different layers of the modern cultural system, it’s best if each one stays in its lane. RB > On Nov 10, 2019, at 7:52 PM, Mawaki Chango via InternetPolicy wrote: > > Thanks Anriette and Alejandro for these summaries/ clarifications. > > @Anriette: As a matter of fact, I ran into this other paper by same authors when I was searching earlier this past week: > https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Human20Rights20and20Internet20Protocols-20Comparing20Processes20and20Principles.pdf > Not sure to what extent one is a version of, or evolved from, the other but I'll soon find out on my next flight in a few hours :) > In any case, I am sure the question of the consideration of social values in tech design (including protocols and standards) is much older... As the titles of some academic journals may suggest. But as you perfectly understood, I wanted to find out the extent to which the reflection started long ago from the outside and in Joy & Avri's paper may now be shaping the tech work. > > @Alejandro: Good to know these ideas have pervaded the tech work to a point it might be challenging to track. I suspect that might be the object of a whole research project. Just noting that you wrote: "The IETF started its work... in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier." The fact is the NSA/ Snowden revelations also occurred in 2013. That may be coincidence but not evidence of a process starting way earlier. In any case, that's a point of detail, and again, thank you for the complement of information. > > Mawaki > > > ==================================== > Mawaki Chango, PhD > Founder & Managing Director > DigiLexis Consulting > Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis > Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango > Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 > ==================================== > > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: > Mawaki, > > this work has extended too far now to account for every part of it. The IETF started its work on "perpass" (pervasive passive surveillance, recognized as a threat) in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier. From it spawned several lines of work, both in the IETF and further out. Some of them were the strong move to encryption with TLS, the push by many organizations to only accept Web traffic with HTTPS, and all the way to the ongoing process regarding DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which encrypts DNS traffic so that even ISPs can't see it. You may be aware that there is a significant quid pro quo in network management and human rights when this is done. Mozilla is the most visible party engaging in favor of DoH at this time. > > Lots more is and has been done both at the standards and in the operational level. This is but a quick summary trying to bridge what is alreay more than six years. Much of it can be traced to the ISOC initiative Anriette has already written about. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net ] en nombre de Mawaki Chango [governance at lists.riseup.net ] > Enviado el: domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019 03:35 > Hasta: governance; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org > Asunto: Re: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? > > The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.) > > Thanks, > > Mawaki > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: > Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement more than it actually holds. > > Mawaki > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: > Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en > https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ > Anriette > > ----------------------------- > > Anriette Esterhuysen > Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning > Association for Progressive Communications > apc.org > afrisig.org > anriette at apc.org > On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and technology design. >> >> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above. >> >> Thanks in advance! >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ==================================== >> Mawaki Chango, PhD >> Founder & CEO, DigiLexis Consulting >> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis >> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >> ==================================== >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > _______________________________________________ > To manage your Internet Society subscriptions > or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at > https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login > and go to the Interests tab within your profile. > - > View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ — Richard Bennett High Tech Forum Founder Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator Internet Policy Consultant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 10 23:23:27 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (farzaneh badii (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 23:23:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Interim injunction in Hong Kong against online freedom of speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The High Court in Hong Kong issued an interim injunction prohibiting anyone from posting and re-posting any information that promotes violence, including on LIHKG and Telegram. Here is the link to ISOC HK objection : https://www.isoc.hk/news/jr-against-online-censorship/?fbclid=IwAR1DVl9yxWD5ND9ZdCGFXlgE1aGBVxvAhr0lH_wYxRO8crGlxMoyAjl6Q14 -- Farzaneh -- Farzaneh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 11 02:09:22 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 02:09:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Remembering Aaron Swartz In-Reply-To: References: <2f5af773-8754-1466-6afe-470d6af207fb@apc.org> Message-ID: I am happy that we were able to capture him on the 2012 Freedom to Connect webcast. This video was shown, in its entirety, at his memorial at Cooper Union in NYC https://isoc.live/4697/ joly On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 8:49 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > I was just thinking of him 3 weeks ago. > Glad to see he is remembered. > Thanks Anriette. > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, 7:33 pm Anriette Esterhuysen, > wrote: > >> How many of you remember Aaron Swartz? Time passes so quickly. I was >> happy to see that the Internet Archive is celebrating his work on >> freedom of information in a very innovative way. >> >> >> https://blog.archive.org/2019/11/06/7th-annual-aaron-swartz-day-at-the-internet-archive/ >> >> For those that do not know who he was: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz >> >> Anriette >> >> -- >> ----------------------------- >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic >> planning >> Association for Progressive Communications >> apc.org >> afrisig.org >> anriette at apc.org >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Nov 11 02:00:25 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 07:00:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Interim injunction in Hong Kong against online freedom of speech In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Edmon had shared both the ISOC HK link and the fundraising page. https://gogetfunding.com/jrcensorship/ On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, 4:24 am farzaneh badii, wrote: > > > > The High Court in Hong Kong issued an interim injunction prohibiting > anyone from posting and re-posting any information that promotes violence, > including on LIHKG and Telegram. > > Here is the link to ISOC HK objection : > > https://www.isoc.hk/news/jr-against-online-censorship/?fbclid=IwAR1DVl9yxWD5ND9ZdCGFXlgE1aGBVxvAhr0lH_wYxRO8crGlxMoyAjl6Q14 > -- > Farzaneh > -- > Farzaneh > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Mon Nov 11 06:05:47 2019 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:05:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Internet Policy] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? In-Reply-To: References: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E3F3@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: <5d5fd56c-16cd-a4f1-5bac-a9b6feef6a8d@digitaldissidents.org> Dear all, As the renowned professor Sandra Braman has shown in quite a lot of publications, based on a close reading of the first 1000 (!) RFCs, political considerations have been an inherent part of the RFC series since their inception. You can read her papers here: http://people.tamu.edu/~Braman/html/topicinternetdesign.html In the RFC on human rights considerations (RFC8280 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8280 ) there is also a literature review which details different positions on this issue. All the best, Niels On 11/11/19 4:46 AM, Richard Bennett wrote: > This kinda stuff looks like a lot of handwaving to me. The technical standards for the Internet do describe protocols for endpoint to endpoint communication, but that does not require endpoints to use their connections for any laudatory purpose. The standards also don’t constrain the organization of the Internet in terms of services, data centers, and financial models. By itself, standards are just words on a screen while the Internet is iron, fiber, silicon, and money.  > > Human rights are also nothing without a legal regime that enforces them. The UDHR includes a section on artists’ rights that directly collides with certain expectations of Internet use; I don’t see any mention fo copyright enforcement in this paper. So we all have rights, but some rights are more worthy than others? > > I think it’s fundamentally misguided to try and design rights into a technical system. In practice, any network system can be used just as easily to protect rights as to violate them. Human rights and network design are different layers of the modern cultural system, it’s best if each one stays in its lane. > > RB > >> On Nov 10, 2019, at 7:52 PM, Mawaki Chango via InternetPolicy > wrote: >> >> Thanks Anriette and Alejandro for these summaries/ clarifications. >> >> @Anriette: As a matter of fact, I ran into this other paper by same authors when I was searching earlier this past week: >> https://www.internetsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Human20Rights20and20Internet20Protocols-20Comparing20Processes20and20Principles.pdf  >> Not sure to what extent one is a version of, or evolved from, the other but I'll soon find out on my next flight in a few hours :) >> In any case, I am sure the question of the consideration of social values in tech design (including protocols and standards) is much older... As the titles of some academic journals may suggest. But as you perfectly understood, I wanted to find out the extent to which the reflection started long ago from the outside and in Joy & Avri's paper may now be shaping the tech work.  >> >> @Alejandro: Good to know these ideas have pervaded the tech work to a point it might be challenging to track. I suspect that might be the object of a whole research project. Just noting that you wrote: "The IETF started its work... in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier." The fact is the NSA/ Snowden revelations also occurred in 2013. That may be coincidence but not evidence of a process starting way earlier. In any case, that's a point of detail, and again, thank you for the complement of information.    >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> ==================================== >> Mawaki Chango, PhD                   >> Founder & Managing Director >> >> DigiLexis Consulting >> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis  >> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >> ==================================== >> >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:51 AM Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch > wrote: >> >> Mawaki, >> >> this work has extended too far now to account for every part of it. The IETF started its work on "perpass" (pervasive passive surveillance, recognized as a threat) in 2013 or so, which means that the discussions to attend to this risk started way earlier. From it spawned several lines of work, both in the IETF and further out. Some of them were the strong move to encryption with TLS, the push by many organizations to only accept Web traffic with HTTPS, and all the way to the ongoing process regarding DNS over HTTPS (DoH) which encrypts DNS traffic so that even ISPs can't see it. You may be aware that there is a significant quid pro quo in network management and human rights when this is done. Mozilla is the most visible party engaging in favor of DoH at this time.  >> >> Lots more is and has been done both at the standards and in the operational level. This is but a quick summary trying to bridge what is alreay more than six years. Much of it can be traced to the ISOC initiative Anriette has already written about. >> >> Alejandro Pisanty >> >>   >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  >>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >> Facultad de Química UNAM >> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>   >> >> +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD >> >> +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 >> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Desde:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net ] en nombre de Mawaki Chango [governance at lists.riseup.net ] >> *Enviado el:* domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019 03:35 >> *Hasta:* governance; internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org >> *Asunto:* Re: [governance] That i* organizations' statement re. "social responsibility" of technical design? >> >> The other side of this question I was seeking to find out about is the possible effects, if any, of this step (resolution?) taken by the i* organizations on standard and protocol development as well as technology design. Is anyone aware of any sequels or impact, first in the work of the technical community and possibly beyond? For instance, there are now RFCs addressing guidelines for privacy and even human rights considerations: not sure whether there had ever been any such language in RFC development and whether this would have been possible before the Montevideo Statement (or the NSA surveillance scandal.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 11:05 PM Mawaki Chango > wrote: >> >> Thanks, Anriette! It seems that my memory was just giving this Statement more than it actually holds. >> >> Mawaki >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 9, 2019 at 10:48 PM Anriette Esterhuysen > wrote: >> >> Your memory is fine, Mawaki. It was the Montevideo Statement: >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2013-10-07-en >> >> https://ccdcoe.org/incyder-articles/montevideo-statement-and-global-government-surveillance-reform-responses-to-government-surveillance-activities/ >> >> Anriette >> >> ----------------------------- >> >> Anriette Esterhuysen >> Senior advisor on internet governance, policy advocacy and strategic planning >> Association for Progressive Communications >> apc.org >> afrisig.org >> anriette at apc.org >> >> On 2019/11/09 15:18, Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> I seem to remember that in the aftermath of the NSA surveillance scandal (pre-NETmundial), the i* organizations got together and put out a statement that seemed to recognize for the first time that technology is not purely "agnostic" with regard to social values (e.g., rights that we think should be valued in the kind of society we want to live in) and that those values need to be kept in mind in the work of technical standards development and technology design.  >>> >>> Is my memory being faulty here, or was there such a thing? Could anyone point me to that declaration? And if this ever was, what has become of it? As I was searching I came across the Montevideo statement but it doesn't appear to specifically address the issue above. >>> >>> Thanks in advance! >>> >>> Mawaki  >>> >>> >>> ==================================== >>> Mawaki Chango, PhD                   >>> Founder & CEO, >>> DigiLexis Consulting >>> Skype: digilexis | Slack: @digilexis  >>> Twitter: @digilexis & @ki_chango >>> Mob. +228 92 14 22 22 | +233 264 070 555 >>> ==================================== >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions >> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at >> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login >> and go to the Interests tab within your profile. >> - >> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/ > > — > Richard Bennett > High Tech Forum  Founder > Ethernet & Wi-Fi standards co-creator > > Internet Policy Consultant > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Niels ten Oever Researcher and PhD Candidate Datactive Research Group University of Amsterdam PGP fingerprint 2458 0B70 5C4A FD8A 9488 643A 0ED8 3F3A 468A C8B3 From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 12 13:30:27 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 15:30:27 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for Volunteers - IGC Appeals Team NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear IGC, As part of the process of reorganising IGC, we would like to reset our Appeals team. According to our Charter , besides the Co-coordinators, another possible organizational role at our Caucus is as member of the "appeals team", a position to which any member can be nominated or self-nominate. Details of this process are available on the IGC Website at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process. We need at least 25 volunteers who are willing to participate in the task of selecting the new Appeals Team. Five of these will be randomly chosen as the voting members of the Nominating Committee. Therefore, please consider making yourself available for the relatively small but nevertheless important task of participating the selection of the new Appeals Team. If you're willing to help out, please volunteer by letting us know, preferably by email to coordinators at igcaucus.org , by Tuesday Dec 10th, 2019. Best Regards, Your Co-Cos Bruna Santos and Sheetal Kumar -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeremy at malcolm.id.au Tue Nov 12 19:56:53 2019 From: jeremy at malcolm.id.au (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 16:56:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] Sexual content moderation and child protection: launch at IGF on November 26 Message-ID: <82f24591-e111-ded5-1f5f-ac5858268f08@malcolm.id.au> Dear all, For those who will be at the IGF, please join us for the launch of a set of best practice principles on sexual content moderation and child protection: https://prostasia.org/sexual-content-moderation-principles/ This will be held at 9am in the room ESTREL 7 (located at Wing 3, Level 6), on Tuesday, 26 November. If you would like to attend, please let me know by email so that I can update you if the room booking changes prior to the event. The principles are based on work of Access Now and others and have been under development through an offline/online multi-stakeholder process since May this year. The principles are intended to assist Internet platforms of all sizes to adopt a more nuanced and better-informed approach towards the moderation and censorship of sexual content, with a view towards protecting children from sexual abuse while also upholding their rights and the rights of others. Once again, please let me know by email if you plan to be there. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Social entrepreneur, lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek echo "9EEAi^^;6C6]>J^=^>6"|tr '\!-~' 'P-~\!-O'|wget -q -i - -O - From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 13 14:02:54 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 19:02:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, As an update, we've received 11 RSVPs for the pre-event! Looking forward to seeing you. If you're intending to come, please do RSVP here: https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ Best Sheetal On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 08:23, Michael J. Oghia wrote: > Dear Sheetal, all: > > Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and you too Bruna). > I'm sorry I can't volunteer to facilitate the sustainable development > group, but I have another event that begins about 30 minutes after the IGC > session (this year's Day 0 is crazy). > > Best, > -Michael > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is great! Please >> RSVP here if you haven't already done so: >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. >> >> However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for the break-out >> group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is definitely an important area >> but if we can't find a facilitator for the session we will unfortunately >> have to drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places at the >> same time :) As such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested in >> facilitating that session. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Veronica, all, >>> >>> Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! I'll note that down. >>> >>> Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up this RSVP (thanks >>> Imran)! >>> >>> Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. The event will be >>> held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. >>> >>> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal. >>> >>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for putting it together. >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the list and APC as a >>>> Coordinator at the Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be participating >>>> in the meeting and happy to help with the sessions on Content Moderation >>>> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, >>>> if needed. >>>> >>>> *Best regards. ** Verónica * >>>> >>>> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is "Pre-event 43: Civil >>>> Society Coordination Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November 25 >>>> from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes instead of initiatives, it was >>>> suggested elsewhere that we should try and develop a response to the HLPDC >>>> report in some way so that's why I put that down as a focus. >>>> >>>> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the input so far, >>>> highlighting the changes in light yellow. >>>> >>>> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each session that would be >>>> great :) - any takers? >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> *---------------------------------------* >>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>> >>>> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>> >>>> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>> Issues (six issues) >>>> >>>> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the >>>> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, >>>> possible messages) >>>> - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level >>>> Panel on Digital Cooperation) >>>> - Cybercrime >>>> - Sustainable Development >>>> - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >>>> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace (w/ focus >>>> on 1st Committee) >>>> - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >>>> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>> discussion >>>> >>>> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>> necessitate working together >>>> >>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes. >>>>> >>>>> What is the goal and scope of the ethics discussion? I note the >>>>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>>>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >>>>> discussion. If this was meant to cover the discussion of fairness and >>>>> ethics in AI, might it not be better to have a 'Emerging Technologies' >>>>> section, where we could talk of the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >>>>> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to human rights? >>>>> >>>>> Just on its face, I would hate to see the civil society agenda mainly >>>>> discussing emerging technologies through a lens of 'ethics.' >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène Tungali >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>>>>> >>>>>> My apologies for being silent on this, so many things going on in my >>>>>> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, Sheetal, which looks great to >>>>>> me. >>>>>> >>>>>> I want to echo and support the inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>>>>> think make sense. >>>>>> >>>>>> I believe our session is the following, as seen on the agenda, right? >>>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>>>>> >>>>>> If that's the case, the time hasn't changed according to what you said >>>>>> in your original email? Please do help clarify. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Arsene >>>>>> >>>>>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke >>>>> >: >>>>>> > Hi Sheetal >>>>>> > This looks good as I hope the cybercrime session will be able to >>>>>> address >>>>>> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>>>>> particularly. >>>>>> > Weldone. >>>>>> > ____ >>>>>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>>>>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>>>>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>>>>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>>>>> > ; ITREALMS >>>>>> > , NaijaAgroNet >>>>>> > ) >>>>>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>>>>> Oshodi-Lagos >>>>>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>>>>> > * >>>>>> > JOIN us!! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society >>>>>> (ACSIS >>>>>> > ) >>>>>> > _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>>>>> attachments >>>>>> > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>>>>> intended >>>>>> > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >>>>>> accept legal >>>>>> > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >>>>>> intended >>>>>> > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document >>>>>> and do >>>>>> > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, nor >>>>>> make >>>>>> > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Please find below the suggestions so far discussed among IGC >>>>>> members for >>>>>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I suggest for the second part that >>>>>> we >>>>>> >> identify volunteers for each of the six issue areas to facilitate >>>>>> the >>>>>> >> discussion. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> It would be great to get your views on the below over the coming >>>>>> days: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> - What do you think of the proposed format? >>>>>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to facilitate any of the issue area >>>>>> >> discussions in part 2? >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>> >> Best >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Sheetal. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>>> >> Issues (six issues) >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines >>>>>> the >>>>>> >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >>>>>> >> discussed, >>>>>> >> possible messages) >>>>>> >> - High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>>>>> >> - Cybercrime >>>>>> >> - Ethics >>>>>> >> - Sustainable Development >>>>>> >> - Christchurch call >>>>>> >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>>>>> >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>>> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>>> >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>>> >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>>> >> necessitate >>>>>> >> working together >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael J. Oghia < >>>>>> mike.oghia at gmail.com> >>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to argue *against* speaking >>>>>> about >>>>>> >>> climate change and sustainability, so if people really want to >>>>>> discuss >>>>>> >>> that >>>>>> >>> then great! >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. I'd be happy to do a webinar >>>>>> at some >>>>>> >>> point (I already have the presentation and have delivered it >>>>>> before). >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit of this topic. Let's see >>>>>> what >>>>>> >>> others say, but know that I am flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Best, >>>>>> >>> -Michael >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Shorey < >>>>>> lists at nickshorey.com> >>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and I’m excited to read all the >>>>>> >>>> interesting topics and activity that’s happening here! >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on sustainability, I politely disagree >>>>>> with >>>>>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* have an agenda item on this >>>>>> topic, if >>>>>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> My reason being is that it appears there is a broad interest in >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>> topic, but that many people are not actually aware of all the >>>>>> activity >>>>>> >>>> that >>>>>> >>>> is going on, in particular the work that IRPC has been doing. >>>>>> From a >>>>>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked through the IGF schedule, it >>>>>> was not >>>>>> >>>> at >>>>>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session would cover climate change. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, so I reckon a brief agenda >>>>>> item - >>>>>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an overview of the work that’s been >>>>>> >>>> taking >>>>>> >>>> place and direct people where to engage - would be an excellent >>>>>> way to >>>>>> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell of interest, and compliment >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>> work >>>>>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more people into the fold and >>>>>> amplifying >>>>>> >>>> the >>>>>> >>>> message. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow this up with a webinar or >>>>>> >>>> something, >>>>>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real value to a brief agenda item >>>>>> >>>> introducing the topic and current activities, and doing so in >>>>>> person to >>>>>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so people can put a face to a name >>>>>> and have >>>>>> >>>> someone they can also chat to during the margins of the event. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Nick >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>>>>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>>>>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>>>>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>>>>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>>>>> >>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>>>>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I would like to be involved in the program and share my >>>>>> experiences. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Arzak >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>>>> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Peter Micek < >>>>>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org> >>>>>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:27:51 PM >>>>>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL ; Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>; Michael J. Oghia >>>>> >; >>>>>> >>>> governance ; Nick Shorey Lists < >>>>>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com>; Naman Aggarwal >>>>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: >>>>>> planning >>>>>> >>>> and preparation >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes of the Day 0 meeting to >>>>>> discuss >>>>>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on the new #WhyID coalition and >>>>>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that digital ID programs must >>>>>> respect >>>>>> >>>> good >>>>>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity norms. These >>>>>> mandatory ID >>>>>> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed without a chance for civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> >>>> input, and before asking whether and why we need them. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the campaign, ping Naman >>>>>> Aggarwal >>>>>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kossi Amessinou < >>>>>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>> This charter >>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/numerique/Charte-pour-un-internet-libre-et-sur.pdf >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>> is important for all but we can put also the african >>>>>> declaration (FR >>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/African-Declaration-French-FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >, >>>>>> >>>>> EN >>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf >>>>>> >) >>>>>> >>>>> on the table. >>>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, Nnenna Nwakanma < >>>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel Report on Digital Cooperation >>>>>> should >>>>>> >>>>>> be on the agenda. Not just feedback on the report, but >>>>>> anticipating >>>>>> >>>>>> CS >>>>>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>>>>> >>>>>> Following the Christchurch call a Charter >>>>>> >>>>>> < >>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/numerique/charte-pour-internet-libre-ouvert-et-sur >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> was launched. I have also copied and posted what I think is an >>>>>> >>>>>> important >>>>>> >>>>>> Declaration of key governments. Simply put, we need to >>>>>> discuss how >>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>> >>>>>> respond to internet governance legislation and regulatory >>>>>> moves >>>>>> >>>>>> across the >>>>>> >>>>>> world. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned, I will be in Berlin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> N >>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint statement affirmed by these >>>>>> countries: >>>>>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, >>>>>> Denmark, >>>>>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>>>>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, >>>>>> Latvia, >>>>>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>>>>> Republic >>>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, >>>>>> and the >>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>> >>>>>> States. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >>>>>> Cyberspace >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Information technology is transforming modern life, driving >>>>>> >>>>>> innovation >>>>>> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the sharing of ideas, of >>>>>> cultures, and >>>>>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its benefits have brought the global >>>>>> >>>>>> community >>>>>> >>>>>> closer together than ever before in history. Even as we >>>>>> recognize the >>>>>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace has brought to our citizens >>>>>> and strive >>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue to reap its benefits, a >>>>>> challenge to >>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and non-state actors are using >>>>>> cyberspace >>>>>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for irresponsible behavior from >>>>>> which to >>>>>> >>>>>> target >>>>>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our citizens, undermine >>>>>> democracies and >>>>>> >>>>>> international institutions and organizations, and undercut fair >>>>>> >>>>>> competition >>>>>> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing ideas when they cannot >>>>>> create them. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the international community has made >>>>>> clear that >>>>>> >>>>>> the international rules-based order should guide state >>>>>> behavior in >>>>>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have increasingly coalesced >>>>>> around an >>>>>> >>>>>> evolving >>>>>> >>>>>> framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace >>>>>> (framework), >>>>>> >>>>>> which >>>>>> >>>>>> supports the international rules-based order, affirms the >>>>>> >>>>>> applicability of >>>>>> >>>>>> international law to state-on-state behavior, adherence to >>>>>> voluntary >>>>>> >>>>>> norms >>>>>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in peacetime, and the >>>>>> development and >>>>>> >>>>>> implementation of practical confidence building measures to >>>>>> help >>>>>> >>>>>> reduce the >>>>>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents. All members of >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed this >>>>>> framework, >>>>>> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN Groups of Governmental >>>>>> Experts >>>>>> >>>>>> reports >>>>>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to uphold the international >>>>>> rules-based >>>>>> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, implementation, and further >>>>>> >>>>>> development, >>>>>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN negotiations of the Open Ended >>>>>> Working >>>>>> >>>>>> Group >>>>>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. We support targeted >>>>>> cybersecurity >>>>>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that all responsible states can >>>>>> implement >>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>> framework and better protect their networks from significant >>>>>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>>>>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise destabilizing cyber activity. We >>>>>> reiterate >>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be respected and protected by >>>>>> states >>>>>> >>>>>> online, as >>>>>> >>>>>> well as offline, including when addressing cybersecurity. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold the international rules-based >>>>>> >>>>>> order, >>>>>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in safeguarding the benefits of a free, >>>>>> open, >>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future generations. When necessary, we >>>>>> will >>>>>> >>>>>> work >>>>>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to hold states accountable when >>>>>> they >>>>>> >>>>>> act >>>>>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, including by taking measures that >>>>>> are >>>>>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with international law. There must >>>>>> be >>>>>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in cyberspace. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We call on all states to support the evolving framework and to >>>>>> join >>>>>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater accountability and stability in >>>>>> cyberspace. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> End Text >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For further information, please contact the Office of the >>>>>> Coordinator >>>>>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at SCCI_Press at state.gov. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are interested in discussing the >>>>>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small working group who has the >>>>>> capacity to >>>>>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the session in an inclusive way. If >>>>>> you're >>>>>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, if you could email Bruna >>>>>> and I >>>>>> >>>>>>> we'll >>>>>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to support the organisation of the >>>>>> event. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with everyone once we have some >>>>>> initial >>>>>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>>>>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>>>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've been hoping for some time >>>>>> that more >>>>>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG community would see the value in >>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate change and sustainability as it relates to our work. >>>>>> Indeed, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> many >>>>>> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives are working on it, albeit >>>>>> across >>>>>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>>>>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and it's not just data centers, it's >>>>>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can think of as it relates to >>>>>> technology. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> While >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at least tries) to limit >>>>>> itself to >>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or what's *on* the Internet, the >>>>>> fact >>>>>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that the IG community could >>>>>> address >>>>>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I organised, for >>>>>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really spearheading this at the >>>>>> moment. I >>>>>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join with them in support to >>>>>> address how >>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate >>>>>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, at the very core, human rights >>>>>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>>>>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. Instead of briefing everyone on >>>>>> the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>>>>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a webinar to anyone interested >>>>>> about the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also written extensively about >>>>>> it). >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC and leave the CS pre-event >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that isn't covered at all by the >>>>>> IGF (the >>>>>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow focus this year, to put it >>>>>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>>>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>>>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a discussion on climate change >>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day zero meeting. This is >>>>>> something >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread set at NCSG mailing list, >>>>>> but there >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to facilitate a discussion on these >>>>>> lines at >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy outcome that would look to the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia and @Nick Shorey >>>>>> Lists >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have been starting this >>>>>> conversation at the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am cc'ing them here! >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of ethics in a globally >>>>>> connected >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right action is never out of fashion , >>>>>> right >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is good risk management … right >>>>>> attitude >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion for human care …. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ >>>>>> ‎PDT, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending yet, I will like to be part >>>>>> of the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber >>>>>> Crime and >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing Economies and Role of Civil Society." >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here about planning one of the civil >>>>>> society >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. It's called "Civil society >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners Digital)" in the schedule but it >>>>>> is *not >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied for it, that's all. It's an >>>>>> event >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and I would suggest that >>>>>> members of IGC >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in shaping its agenda. It's been >>>>>> moved to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a request from the IGF >>>>>> Secretariat. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the sidelines of RightsCon earlier >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the event could focus on sharing >>>>>> updates on >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps planning for how to input >>>>>> into them >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First Committee processes on >>>>>> cyber and >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any matters pertaining to the >>>>>> IGC. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful if you could share your views >>>>>> on the >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums should we discuss at the civil >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss any topics related to IGC >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these topics (presentations, or >>>>>> just open >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind we have only 2 hours? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like to see from the pre-event? >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be involved in planning the event >>>>>> (this will >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few hours over the next two >>>>>> months, I >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you could let me know if you're >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is dependent on funding for many >>>>>> of us >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that would be great. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D >>>>>> 173B E9E2 >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>> E9E2 >>>>>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>>>>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication >>>>>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>>>>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>>>>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >>>>>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>>>>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>>>>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >>>>>> >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>>>>> >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>>>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma >>>>>> parole >>>>>> >>>>> est >>>>>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> >>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>> >>>> Peter Micek >>>>>> >>>> General Counsel >>>>>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> , >>>>>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> -- >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 >>>>>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>> *, >>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>>>> < >>>>>> >>>>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>>>> Member. UN IGF MAG >>>>>> Member >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter Micek >>>>> General Counsel >>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>> >>>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>> >>>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>> , >>>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Verónica Ferrari >>>> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >>>> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Wed Nov 13 14:20:14 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:20:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Commons Forum Message-ID: <20191113122014.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.28170773cd.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, I am circulating this as I think many of you may be interested. The first edition of the Internet Commons Forum (www.intcomforum.org) will take place on Monday, November 25 from 15:40 to 18:15 in the Estrel Saal B, at the IGF venue. Below a brief description of the event. All the best Luca The Internet Commons Forum (ICF) is jointly organised by FGV, ISOC, APC and Centrum Cyfrowe. The ICF aims at gathering thinkers and doers that are developing ideas and solutions for a less concentrated and more just Internet. The structures of the Internet affect us more deeply than ever before, reaching out to all aspects of our lives, from our societies and cultures to our finances and politics - to our very individual human behaviours and identities. This event will explore different views of Internet Commons exploring strategies for a less concentrated Internet. Every session will feature weel-respected thinkers and doers exposing their ideas and innovative approaches for 10 minutes each and subsequently engaging in a collaborative discussion with the participants, to identify paths for collaborations. Opening: Setting the Scene Luca Belli, FGV Adam Burns, Free2Air Sophie Bloemen, Commons Network Volker Grassmuck, Digitale Gesellscaft Section 1 Infrastructure(less) Jane Coffin, ISOC Carlos Baca, Rhizomatica Nico Pace, LibreRouter Open debate on actions and proposals Moderator: Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Section 2 Platforms, Content and Data Mathias Judd, Qaul Net Mariana Valente, Creative Commons Anita Gurumurthy IT for Change Paul-Olivier Dehaye, PersonalData.IO Open debate on actions and proposals Moderator: Anriette Esterhuysen, APC Section 3 Crowdsourcing Policy Markus Beckedahl, Netzpolitik.org Alek Tarkowski, Centrum Cyfrowe Open debate on actions and proposals Closing remarks: Luca Belli & Adam Burns The event will be followed by a cocktail reception. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Sat Nov 2 10:01:15 2019 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 23:01:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired PrepCom 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s been so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem indeed. Izumi 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) : > Hi all. > > Chipping in…. > > “in their respective roles” > > It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in > their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one > perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised as > having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. > > > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could > discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues > > The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to > arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate > includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in > particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but > for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past > imperfect) not enough for their bosses. > > > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have > reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private > sector in internet related policy development, > > I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate > “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall > Shope-Mafole , then > Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and > Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which someone > said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said > that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep > pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. > > > > I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government > does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger sitting > next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you work > for the government?) > > > > This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model > apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters demanding > S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter of > the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed > https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy calling > for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of > the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did the > same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case > *. > The court threw out the two cases > https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case > . > > There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and > as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had a > satisfying lunch meeting. > > > > Regards, > > Ang Peng Hwa > > > > > > *From: * on behalf of "Mueller, > Milton L" > *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM > *To: *governance > *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > development at a national level? > > > > Ian, David, Tamir: > > Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. > > > > We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as “in > their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. > > > > In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet > policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, they > believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial > sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for > governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private > sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role of > civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had something > to do with local communities. > > > > The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted > equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true of > those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance > institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in > making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. > > > > WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder > governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document written > entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had different > “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could > discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” > > > > The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never > really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role of > governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS > resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in things > like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private sector > as influential as governments. > > > > Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is > transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does > not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial > sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on any > rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully integrated > with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de > facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system such > as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten > the global compatibility of the internet. > > > > The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in which > national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for cyberspace > because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder gov fills the > gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. > > > > Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or “equal > footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the > point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking > place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national > level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less > problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of > traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are > all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power sharing > arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the > national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is > because there is no global sovereign. > > > > These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized > along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: > > > > https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd > > > > > > > > *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * > david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM > *To:* governance > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > development at a national level? > > > > How about "in their respective roles"? > > > > David > > > > > > On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have > reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private > sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of > the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". > > > > Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago > we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. > What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? > > > > Ian > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- >> 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: From milton at gatech.edu Wed Nov 13 15:54:34 2019 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 20:54:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tech nationalism, 5G and Cybersecurity Message-ID: A workshop that may be of special interest to IGC members who will be attending IGF Berlin is shown below. TECH NATIONALISM, 5G, CYBERSECURITY AND TRADE Tuesday, November 26 * 11:30 - 13:00 IGF Sched listing: https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU0s/ws-41-tech-nationalism-5g-cybersecurity-and-trade This session will discuss the competition over 5G and other "strategic" ICTs that are alleged to be critical to national power. The workshop is structured as a debate, but the speakers are not polarized and will be able to appreciate the claims of either position. The debate will explore how the securitization of software and equipment affects Internet governance and the digital economy. The panel will include perspectives from the USA, Europe, India, Australia and China. The panel will debate and discuss the following questions: - What is tech nationalism and how widespread is it in the developed and developing world? - What cybersecurity threats, if any, are posed by the national origin of 5G infrastructure suppliers? - Many observers have detected a subcategory of tech nationalism called "data nationalism" that views data as a 'national resource' to be protected by the state. What are the arguments for and against this approach? - How much of the concern about foreign equipment, software and data use is motivated by economic protectionism rather than cybersecurity? - Is it possible to reconcile national cybersecurity with globalized markets for software, services and equipment? - Is tech nationalism compatible with multistakeholder governance of the Internet? Speakers: - Milton Mueller, Director of the Internet Governance Project at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA (co-moderator) - William Drake, International Fellow and Lecturer in the Media Change & Innovation Division of the Department of Communication and Media Research at the University of Zurich (co-moderator) - Jyoti Panday , Researcher, India Telecom Center of Excellence, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad - Jan-Peter Kleinhans, Project Director IT Security in the Internet of Things, Stiftung Neue Verantwortung - Tobias Feakin, Ambassador for Cyber Affairs of the Australian Government - Huawei Corporation representative (invited) Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 49431 bytes Desc: image003.png URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Nov 14 05:44:20 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 05:44:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: European Community Networks Summit in Tbilisi, Georgia Message-ID: Just started. Another bi-lingual webcast! ISOC Live posted: "On November 14-15 2019 the Internet Society, in partnership with the Georgian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development, organizes the European Community Networks Summit “Community Networks: Connecting the Next Billion” in Tbilisi, Georgia. Over the" [image: livestream] On *November 14-15 2019* the *Internet Society *, in partnership with the *Georgian Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development *, organizes the European Community Networks Summit “*Community Networks: Connecting the Next Billion *” in Tbilisi, Georgia. Over the past few years, community networks have emerged as a low-cost, community-driven way to bring Internet connections to some of the remotest and underserved parts of the world, including in the mountainous region of Tusheti, Georgia. However, these community-led solutions face many challenges that require policymaker’s consideration to flourish. ENGLISH *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/cnsummit2019 * 2019 წლის 14-15 ნოემბერს ინტერნეტ საზოგადოება, საქართველოს ეკონომიკისა და მდგრადი განვითარების სამინისტროსთან თანამშრომლობით, თბილისში, საქართველოში აწყობს ევროპული საზოგადოების ქსელების სამიტს "სათემო ქსელები: შემდეგი მილიარდის დაკავშირება". ბოლო რამდენიმე წლის განმავლობაში, საზოგადოებრივი ქსელები წარმოიქმნა, როგორც იაფი, საზოგადოებაზე ორიენტირებული გზა, რათა მიეწოდებინათ ინტერნეტ – კავშირი მსოფლიოს ზოგიერთ შორეულ და დაუცველ ნაწილში, მათ შორის, საქართველოში, თუშეთის მაღალმთიან რეგიონში. ამასთან, თემის წინამორბედ გადაწყვეტილებებს მრავალი გამოწვევა ემუქრება, რაც პოლიტიკის შემქმნელების აყვავებას მოითხოვს. ამრიგად, ინტერნეტ საზოგადოება პარტნიორობს საქართველოს ეკონომიკისა და მდგრადი განვითარების სამინისტროსთან, რომ ამ ნოემბერში თბილისში გაიმართოს დიდი საერთაშორისო კონფერენცია, რათა დააზიანოს დაინტერესებული მხარეები და ევროკავშირის პოლიტიკოსები მთელს ევროპაში. ქართული< *ნახვა LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/cnsummit2019 * *AGENDA: https://www.internetsociety.org/events/2019-european-summit-on-community-networks/agenda/ * *TWITTER: #CNsummit2019 #SwitchItOn* *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11498/ - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Nov 15 08:20:28 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 18:50:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Release of Digital Justice Manifesto at zero day event at the IGF Message-ID: <40f3b548-d1aa-eab3-c83e-40ae033f172f@itforchange.net> All are invited to join in.... parminder (invite also enclosed) *Just Net Coalition * invites you to the release of *The Digital Justice Manifesto* *A Call to Own Our Digital Future* *25th November, 2.20 PM - 4.30 PM * *Estrel Saal C, Estrel Congress Centre, Berlin* *(Venue for the Internet Governance Forum)*   *Manifesto Release by * *Elvan Korkmaz* (Member of the German Parliament - Bundestag) and *Katalin Gennburg * (Member of the Berlin House of Representatives)   Followed by a panel discussion *Elvan Korkmaz* *Katalin Gennburg* *Anita Gurumurthy (IT for Change)* *Julia Reda (Former Member of the European Parliament)* *Fabien Anthony (AfricaGen)* *Moderated by Sarah Ganter (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung)*   Followed by Q and A session with Just Net Coalition members *Norbert Bollow, Sally Burch, Richard Hill, Parminder Jeet Singh*     * **RSVP to info at justnetcoalition.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Invitation_Digital-Justice-Manifesto-Release.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81620 bytes Desc: not available URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Sat Nov 16 10:46:44 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 08:46:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] Platform Values @ IGF Message-ID: <20191116084644.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.7383479460.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, I would like to thank - also on behalf of my coeditor Nicolo - the various members of this list who have submitted highly interesting papers for the Special Issue on Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance and have helped organising the IGF session where the SI will be released and debated with other stakeholders. Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed at the session that will take place on 27 November from 15:00 to 16:30 https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU3d/dc-on-platform-responsibility Here is a long description of the session https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-platform-values-conflicting-rights-ai-and-tax-avoidance Below a shorter description of the session and the table of content of the SI. I hope to meet some of you at the IGF All the best Luca Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance This session will discuss three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance. The session will include presentations based on the papers featured in a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, celebrating five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility and devoted to 'Platform Value(s): Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance'. The Special Issue, which is the 2019 official outcome of the coalition, will include also the finalised Best Practices on Platforms' Implementation on the Right to Effective Remedy, produced by the Coalition between May 2018 and March 2019 (available here). Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed. The Special Issue will also be released in open access starting 27 November 2019. In the meantime, you can read the editorial "Platform value(s): A multidimensional framework for online responsibility" here. The session will have the following agenda: + Opening remarks by Nicolo Zingales, University of Leeds, and Luca Belli, FGV Part I- Platform Values, Freedom of Expression and Democracy + Keynote by Edison Lanza, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Organization of American States + Nic Suzor, Queensland University of Technology + Monica Rosina, Facebook Quick round of questions Part II: Platform values and content moderation + Chris Marsden, University of Sussex + Ivar Hartmann, FGV + Giovanni De Gregorio, Univerista' Milano Bicocca + Dragana Obradovic, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Quick round of questions Part III: Conflcting rights and values + Catherine Carnovale, Elsevier + Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich + Catalina Goanta, Maastricht University + Yseult Marique, University of Essex Open Debate Table of contents of the Special Issue + Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales Introductory Essays + Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values José van Dijck + A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance Nicolas Suzor + From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform Act Harold Feld Conflicting Rights + The New City Regulators Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta + Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the Modern Public Square Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique + A New Framework for Online Content Moderation Ivar Hartmann Artificial Intelligence + Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship Rolf H. Weber + Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework Giovanni De Gregorio + Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation? Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown Tax Avoidance + The Progressive Policy Shift in the Debate on the International Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy: A “Pretext” for Overhaul of the International Tax Regime? Alessandro Turina + E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms Play a Valuable Role? Luisa Scarcella Annex + Best Practices Platforms' Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Sat Nov 16 11:23:52 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 09:23:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] Platform Values Message-ID: <20191116092352.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ba09a6efed.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, I would like to thank - also on behalf of my coeditor Nicolo - the various members of this list who have submitted highly interesting papers for the Special Issue on Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance and have helped organising the IGF session where the SI will be released and debated with other stakeholders. Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed at the session that will take place on 27 November, from 15:00 to 16:30 https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU3d/dc-on-platform-responsibility Here is a long description of the session https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-platform-values-conflicting-rights-ai-and-tax-avoidance Below a shorter description of the session and the table of content of the SI. I hope to meet some of you at the IGF All the best Luca Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance This session will discuss three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance. The session will include presentations based on the papers featured in a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, celebrating five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility and devoted to 'Platform Value(s): Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance'. The Special Issue, which is the 2019 official outcome of the coalition, will include also the finalised Best Practices on Platforms' Implementation on the Right to Effective Remedy, produced by the Coalition between May 2018 and March 2019 (available here). Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed. The Special Issue will also be released in open access starting 27 November 2019. In the meantime, you can read the editorial "Platform value(s): A multidimensional framework for online responsibility" here. The session will have the following agenda: + · Opening remarks by Nicolo Zingales, University of Leeds, and Luca Belli, FGV Part I- Platform Values, Freedom of Expression and Democracy + · Keynote by Edison Lanza, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Organization of American States + · Nic Suzor, Queensland University of Technology + · Monica Rosina, Facebook Quick round of questions Part II: Platform values and content moderation + · Chris Marsden, University of Sussex + · Ivar Hartmann, FGV + · Giovanni De Gregorio, Univerista' Milano Bicocca + · Dragana Obradovic, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Quick round of questions Part III: Conflcting rights and values + · Catherine Carnovale, Elsevier + · Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich + · Catalina Goanta, Maastricht University + · Yseult Marique, University of Essex · Open Debate Table of contents of the Special Issue + Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales [Already available here] Introductory Essays + Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values José van Dijck + A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance Nicolas Suzor + From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform Act Harold Feld Conflicting Rights + The New City Regulators Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta + Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the Modern Public Square Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique + A New Framework for Online Content Moderation Ivar Hartmann Artificial Intelligence + Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship Rolf H. Weber + Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework Giovanni De Gregorio + Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation? Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown Tax Avoidance + The Progressive Policy Shift in the Debate on the International Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy: A “Pretext” for Overhaul of the International Tax Regime? Alessandro Turina + E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms Play a Valuable Role? Luisa Scarcella Annex + Best Practices Platforms' Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Sun Nov 17 07:24:10 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2019 05:24:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Platform Values In-Reply-To: <20191116092352.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ba09a6efed.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <20191117052410.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.2d4ab8a6e5.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all Some of you made me notice the links I shared in my previous email were corrupted due to an Outlook technical glitch My apologies for the inconvenience. Below the correct links Shed https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU3d/dc-on-platform-responsibility Long description https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-platform-values-conflicting-rights-ai-and-tax-avoidance SI Editorial on Platform Value(s) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3488282. Best Luca --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [GIGANET-MEMBERS] Platform Values From: 'Luca Belli' Date: 11/16/19 1:23 pm To: GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Dear colleagues, I would like to thank - also on behalf of my coeditor Nicolo - the various members of this list who have submitted highly interesting papers for the Special Issue on Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance and have helped organising the IGF session where the SI will be released and debated with other stakeholders. Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed at the session that will take place on 27 November, from 15:00 to 16:30 https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU3d/dc-on-platform-responsibility Here is a long description of the session https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-platform-values-conflicting-rights-ai-and-tax-avoidance Below a shorter description of the session and the table of content of the SI. I hope to meet some of you at the IGF All the best Luca Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, AI and Tax Avoidance This session will discuss three of the most crucial points of contention with regard to values underlying the operation of digital platforms: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance. The session will include presentations based on the papers featured in a special issue of the Computer Law & Security Review, celebrating five years of activities of the UN IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility and devoted to 'Platform Value(s): Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance'. The Special Issue, which is the 2019 official outcome of the coalition, will include also the finalised Best Practices on Platforms' Implementation on the Right to Effective Remedy, produced by the Coalition between May 2018 and March 2019 (available here). Free hard copies of the Special Issue will be distributed. The Special Issue will also be released in open access starting 27 November 2019. In the meantime, you can read the editorial "Platform value(s): A multidimensional framework for online responsibility" here. The session will have the following agenda: + · Opening remarks by Nicolo Zingales, University of Leeds, and Luca Belli, FGV Part I- Platform Values, Freedom of Expression and Democracy + · Keynote by Edison Lanza, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression Organization of American States + · Nic Suzor, Queensland University of Technology + · Monica Rosina, Facebook Quick round of questions Part II: Platform values and content moderation + · Chris Marsden, University of Sussex + · Ivar Hartmann, FGV + · Giovanni De Gregorio, Univerista' Milano Bicocca + · Dragana Obradovic, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network Quick round of questions Part III: Conflcting rights and values + · Catherine Carnovale, Elsevier + · Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich + · Catalina Goanta, Maastricht University + · Yseult Marique, University of Essex · Open Debate Table of contents of the Special Issue + Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli and Nicolo Zingales [Already available here] Introductory Essays + Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values José van Dijck + A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance Nicolas Suzor + From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform Act Harold Feld Conflicting Rights + The New City Regulators Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta + Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the Modern Public Square Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique + A New Framework for Online Content Moderation Ivar Hartmann Artificial Intelligence + Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship Rolf H. Weber + Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework Giovanni De Gregorio + Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation? Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown Tax Avoidance + The Progressive Policy Shift in the Debate on the International Tax Challenges of the Digital Economy: A “Pretext” for Overhaul of the International Tax Regime? Alessandro Turina + E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms Play a Valuable Role? Luisa Scarcella Annex + Best Practices Platforms' Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Nov 18 07:16:42 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:16:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Hi all, Hope you are well. ...i'm following this thread from the beginning and, i found it instructive. So thanks to y'all ! I want to add more variance (*maybe off-topic; then i apologize*), if allowed, please :-) ...so, question : What about the implementation of inclusiveness/multistakeholder, *and bottom-up approach, *by InternetSociety.ORG ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, Ian Peter a écrit : > Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. > > I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that > the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably > things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global > dimension where there was a presumed problem. > > Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a > national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to > pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society > involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments > effective ways of doing things. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Andrés Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com > Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" ; "Ang Peng Hwa > (Prof)" ; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > development at a national level? > > Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still > wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders > and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR > > Andrés > > El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (< > governance at lists.riseup.net>) escribió: > >> [...] > > > > -- > *Andrés Piazza* > @andrespiazza > > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 18 22:44:25 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 03:44:25 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Hi Sylvain, I dont think the Internet Society has any inclusive, multistakeholder or bottom up approach. I don't think it even pretends to any more. But perhaps things might change, we live in hope. For anyone who is not aware of the recent sale of the Public Interest Registry by ISOC to a for profit venture capital company, happy to provide some references. It is being discussed in a few places, perhaps a response here might be appropriate as well (but please start a new topic!) Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sylvain Baya" To: "IGCaucus" Sent: 18/11/2019 11:16:42 PM Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >Hi all, > >Hope you are well. >...i'm following this thread from the beginning and, i found it >instructive. So thanks to y'all ! > >I want to add more variance (maybe off-topic; then i apologize), if >allowed, please :-) > >...so, question : >What about the implementation of inclusiveness/multistakeholder, and >bottom-up approach, by >InternetSociety.ORG ? > >Thanks. > >Shalom, >--sb. > >Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, Ian Peter a écrit : >>Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. >> >>I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in >>that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where >>presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to >>the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. >> >>Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a >>national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be >>great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for >>civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their >>governments effective ways of doing things. >> >>Ian >> >>------ Original Message ------ >>From: "Andrés Piazza" >>To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com >>Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" ; "Ang Peng Hwa >>(Prof)" ; "CWCS (IGC)" >> >>Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM >>Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>development at a national level? >> >>>Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still >>>wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other >>>stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative >>>BFA.AR >>> >>>Andrés >>> >>>El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali >>>() escribió: >>>>[...] >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Andrés Piazza >>>@andrespiazza > > >-- > >-- >Best Regards ! >baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | > >Subscribe to Mailing List : > >__ >#‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec >vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» >‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ >«Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme >soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apisan at unam.mx Tue Nov 19 00:37:29 2019 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 05:37:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D03755802F6@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Ian, ISOC is not constituted in a way that it has to develop multistakeholder approaches for all its processes; to begin with, it is not structured around stakeholder groups. What counts is its track record and ongoing participation in building up multistakeholder proceses where applicable, and its experience in helping structure each of them according to purpose, membership, and resources; that record is pretty good. Long ago - a decade or so - we developed a WSIS-o-meter and the mechanisms in which ISOC has taken part in design and/or operation graded way above any other. Let me again suggest that people look at what we now call multistakeholder processes in fields other than Internet governance for a better understanding. Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Química UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: lunes, 18 de noviembre de 2019 21:44 Hasta: abscoco at gmail.com; IGCaucus Asunto: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Hi Sylvain, I dont think the Internet Society has any inclusive, multistakeholder or bottom up approach. I don't think it even pretends to any more. But perhaps things might change, we live in hope. For anyone who is not aware of the recent sale of the Public Interest Registry by ISOC to a for profit venture capital company, happy to provide some references. It is being discussed in a few places, perhaps a response here might be appropriate as well (but please start a new topic!) Ian Peter ------ Original Message ------ From: "Sylvain Baya" > To: "IGCaucus" > Sent: 18/11/2019 11:16:42 PM Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Hi all, Hope you are well. ...i'm following this thread from the beginning and, i found it instructive. So thanks to y'all ! I want to add more variance (maybe off-topic; then i apologize), if allowed, please :-) ...so, question : What about the implementation of inclusiveness/multistakeholder, and bottom-up approach, by InternetSociety.ORG ? Thanks. Shalom, --sb. Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, Ian Peter > a écrit : Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Andrés Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR Andrés El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (>) escribió: [...] -- Andrés Piazza @andrespiazza -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anita at itforchange.net Wed Nov 20 03:32:24 2019 From: anita at itforchange.net (anita) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:02:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Research Report : Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy, from IT for Change Message-ID: <139cabdc-b781-757c-235e-3ab2addbce47@itforchange.net> Dear friends Sharing an important research report with you on the changing landscape of the global economy. This is about the impact of data and its deployment as a key resource in the production process. Commonly understood as the platform model, this new point of inflection in economic organisation needs to be understood for its deep implications for equality and justice. This research from IT for Change is among the first to demonstrate the highly inequitable impacts of platformization on the global south. Please circulate widely in your networks. Apologies for cross-posts. anita Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy Greetings from IT for Change , Whether in mainstream popular discourse or research, ‘the platform turn’ in economic organization has garnered widespread attention. Once buoyant discourses that celebrated ‘innovation’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘disruption’ brought forth by the platform model today jostle with equally concerned echoes around the ‘Amazonification’ of the economy. The past few years have been witness to the rise and rise of tech monopolies and a no-holds barred expansion of the digital into the everyday. On the one hand global currents of platformization have resulted in adverse terms of market engagement for smaller or less powerful players and real-world outcomes for local development. On the other, institutions have struggled to respond to the public policy making imperative in relation to the platform economy. We are pleased to announce the release of our new report, ‘Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy’ that synthesizes findings from a two year multi-country, cross-sectoral research program led by IT for Change. Our report analyzes and shows how platforms – as network-data architectures that orchestrate production and exchange – restructure socio-economic relations. Proceeding from an analysis of production systems and value creation, the report traces the transformation from size-scale to intelligence-scale economies and the undisputed rise of data as the new resource over which a planetary struggle for power emerges. We invite you to read our report and delve into the many insights that have come from this project or take a look at our executive summary for a quick snapshot of findings. Please consider sharing and circulating widely among your networks. Additionally, we will be sharing more outputs including policy briefs, case studies and policy overviews over the next few weeks. Traversing different domains, geographies and political-economic contexts from across 14 sites, these outputs capture a deep-dive exploration of the platformization phenomenon. Be on the lookout for more exciting updates from our end.   Facebook Twitter Website *Our mailing address is:* # 393, 17th Main Road, 35th Cross, Jayanagar 4th 'T' Block, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . -- Anita Gurumurthy   Executive Director IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net Phone: 00-91-80-26536890 | T: 080 2653 6890 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 2 11:04:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2019 12:04:12 -0300 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Ian, Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU wrote: > Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired PrepCom > 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South > Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. > > IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say > making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want > to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they > got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s been > so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem > indeed. > > Izumi > > > 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) : > >> Hi all. >> >> Chipping in…. >> >> “in their respective roles” >> >> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. >From one >> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised as >> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >> >> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >> >> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >> >> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >> sector in internet related policy development, >> >> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >> Shope-Mafole , then >> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which someone >> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >> >> >> >> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger sitting >> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you work >> for the government?) >> >> >> >> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters demanding >> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter of >> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy calling >> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did the >> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >> *. >> The court threw out the two cases >> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >> . >> >> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had a >> satisfying lunch meeting. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Ang Peng Hwa >> >> >> >> >> >> *From: * on behalf of "Mueller, >> Milton L" >> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" >> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >> *To: *governance >> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >> development at a national level? >> >> >> >> Ian, David, Tamir: >> >> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >> >> >> >> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >> >> >> >> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, they >> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role of >> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had something >> to do with local communities. >> >> >> >> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true of >> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >> >> >> >> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document written >> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had different >> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >> >> >> >> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role of >> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in things >> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private sector >> as influential as governments. >> >> >> >> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on any >> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully integrated >> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system such >> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >> the global compatibility of the internet. >> >> >> >> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >> >> >> >> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or “equal >> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power sharing >> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >> because there is no global sovereign. >> >> >> >> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >> >> >> >> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >> *To:* governance >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >> development at a national level? >> >> >> >> How about "in their respective roles"? >> >> >> >> David >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >> >> >> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps of >> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >> >> >> >> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed that. >> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >> >> >> >> Ian >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > > >> List help: >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > www.anr.org > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 20 03:41:56 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:11:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] New Research Report : Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy, from IT for Change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, It for Change is happy to share our new report on the platform economy with all of you. Details in mailer. Please do take a look and consider sharing widely among your networks. Best parminder New Research Report : Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy, from IT for Change Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy Greetings from IT for Change , Whether in mainstream popular discourse or research, ‘the platform turn’ in economic organization has garnered widespread attention. Once buoyant discourses that celebrated ‘innovation’, ‘opportunity’ and ‘disruption’ brought forth by the platform model today jostle with equally concerned echoes around the ‘Amazonification’ of the economy. The past few years have been witness to the rise and rise of tech monopolies and a no-holds barred expansion of the digital into the everyday. On the one hand global currents of platformization have resulted in adverse terms of market engagement for smaller or less powerful players and real-world outcomes for local development. On the other, institutions have struggled to respond to the public policy making imperative in relation to the platform economy. We are pleased to announce the release of our new report, ‘Platform Planet: Development in the Intelligence Economy’ that synthesizes findings from a two year multi-country, cross-sectoral research program led by IT for Change. Our report analyzes and shows how platforms – as network-data architectures that orchestrate production and exchange – restructure socio-economic relations. Proceeding from an analysis of production systems and value creation, the report traces the transformation from size-scale to intelligence-scale economies and the undisputed rise of data as the new resource over which a planetary struggle for power emerges. We invite you to read our report and delve into the many insights that have come from this project or take a look at our executive summary for a quick snapshot of findings. Please consider sharing and circulating widely among your networks. Additionally, we will be sharing more outputs including policy briefs, case studies and policy overviews over the next few weeks. Traversing different domains, geographies and political-economic contexts from across 14 sites, these outputs capture a deep-dive exploration of the platformization phenomenon. Be on the lookout for more exciting updates from our end.   Facebook Twitter Website *Our mailing address is:* # 393, 17th Main Road, 35th Cross, Jayanagar 4th 'T' Block, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Nov 20 07:04:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 09:04:34 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Call for Volunteers - IGC Appeals Team NomCom In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Just a gentle reminder of this open call for Nomcom of the IGC Appeals Team. And thank you very much to all of you who volunteered so far! Best, Bruna and Sheetal IGC Co-Coordinators ---------- Forwarded message --------- De : Bruna Martins dos Santos Date: mar. 12 nov. 2019 à 15:28 Subject: Call for Volunteers - IGC Appeals Team NomCom To: Internet Governance , Sheetal Kumar < sheetal at gp-digital.org> Dear all, As part of the process of reorganising IGC, we would like to reset our Appeals team. According to our Charter , besides the Co-coordinators, another possible organizational role at our Caucus is as member of the "appeals team", a position to which any member can be nominated or self-nominate. Details of this process are available on the IGC Website at http://www.igcaucus.org/nomcom-process. We need at least 25 volunteers who are willing to participate in the task of selecting the new Appeals Team. Five of these will be randomly chosen as the voting members of the Nominating Committee. Therefore, please consider making yourself available for the relatively small but nevertheless important task of participating the selection of the new Appeals Team. If you're willing to help out, please volunteer by letting us know, preferably by email to coordinators at igcaucus.org , by Tuesday Dec 10th, 2019. Best Regards, Your Co-Cos Bruna Santos and Sheetal Kumar -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 20 10:40:36 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:40:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> Message-ID: Dear all, Bruna and I are looking forward to seeing some of you next week for the civil society pre-event in Berlin. We have about 25 RSVPs so far, and are keeping the webpage updated: https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event We don't have any facilitators for the content regulation session or sustainable development break-outs. However, I suggest that we proceed as planned and at the beginning of the session we agree all the breakouts and confirm facilitators for each. There may be someone who wants to run a session on the day and I don't see why that shouldn't happen! Conversely, if there aren't enough facilitators we can drop a couple of them. Also, thanks to those who filled out the survey. I've attached the responses (anonymous) in case they're useful to refer to during the meeting. This is the direct link to the event: https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU0F/pre-event-43-civil-society-coordination-meeting *Address and time below: * Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 Estrel Saal B *Sonnenallee 225, 12057 Berlin, Germany * We look forward to seeing you there! If you have any questions at all in the meantime, please let us know. Safe travels, Best Sheetal and Bruna ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) - Expectations from the event (plenary) *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* Issues (five issues) - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, possible messages) - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation) - Sustainable Development - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) - State behaviour in cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st Committee and 3rd Committee) - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion *Part 3 - 45 mins?* Next steps, including IGC internal issues - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will necessitate working together On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:02, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Hi all, > > As an update, we've received 11 RSVPs for the pre-event! Looking forward > to seeing you. > > If you're intending to come, please do RSVP here: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > Best > Sheetal > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 08:23, Michael J. Oghia > wrote: > >> Dear Sheetal, all: >> >> Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and you too Bruna). >> I'm sorry I can't volunteer to facilitate the sustainable development >> group, but I have another event that begins about 30 minutes after the IGC >> session (this year's Day 0 is crazy). >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is great! Please >>> RSVP here if you haven't already done so: >>> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >>> >>> We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. >>> >>> However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for the break-out >>> group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is definitely an important area >>> but if we can't find a facilitator for the session we will unfortunately >>> have to drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places at the >>> same time :) As such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested in >>> facilitating that session. >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> >>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Veronica, all, >>>> >>>> Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! I'll note that down. >>>> >>>> Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up this RSVP (thanks >>>> Imran)! >>>> >>>> Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. The event will be >>>> held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. >>>> >>>> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for putting it together. >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the list and APC as a >>>>> Coordinator at the Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be participating >>>>> in the meeting and happy to help with the sessions on Content Moderation >>>>> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, >>>>> if needed. >>>>> >>>>> *Best regards. ** Verónica * >>>>> >>>>> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is "Pre-event 43: Civil >>>>> Society Coordination Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November 25 >>>>> from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes instead of initiatives, it was >>>>> suggested elsewhere that we should try and develop a response to the HLPDC >>>>> report in some way so that's why I put that down as a focus. >>>>> >>>>> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the input so far, >>>>> highlighting the changes in light yellow. >>>>> >>>>> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each session that would be >>>>> great :) - any takers? >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal >>>>> >>>>> *---------------------------------------* >>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>> >>>>> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>> >>>>> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>> Issues (six issues) >>>>> >>>>> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the >>>>> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, >>>>> possible messages) >>>>> - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level >>>>> Panel on Digital Cooperation) >>>>> - Cybercrime >>>>> - Sustainable Development >>>>> - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >>>>> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace (w/ focus >>>>> on 1st Committee) >>>>> - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >>>>> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>> discussion >>>>> >>>>> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>> necessitate working together >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the goal and scope of the ethics discussion? I note the >>>>>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>>>>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >>>>>> discussion. If this was meant to cover the discussion of fairness and >>>>>> ethics in AI, might it not be better to have a 'Emerging Technologies' >>>>>> section, where we could talk of the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >>>>>> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to human rights? >>>>>> >>>>>> Just on its face, I would hate to see the civil society agenda mainly >>>>>> discussing emerging technologies through a lens of 'ethics.' >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène Tungali < >>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My apologies for being silent on this, so many things going on in my >>>>>>> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, Sheetal, which looks great >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I want to echo and support the inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>>>>>> think make sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe our session is the following, as seen on the agenda, right? >>>>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>>>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that's the case, the time hasn't changed according to what you >>>>>>> said >>>>>>> in your original email? Please do help clarify. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke >>>>>> >: >>>>>>> > Hi Sheetal >>>>>>> > This looks good as I hope the cybercrime session will be able to >>>>>>> address >>>>>>> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>>>>>> particularly. >>>>>>> > Weldone. >>>>>>> > ____ >>>>>>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>>>>>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>>>>>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>>>>>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>>>>>> > ; ITREALMS >>>>>>> > , NaijaAgroNet >>>>>>> > ) >>>>>>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>>>>>> Oshodi-Lagos >>>>>>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>>>>>> > * >>>>>>> > JOIN us!! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society >>>>>>> (ACSIS >>>>>>> > ) >>>>>>> > _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>>>>>> attachments >>>>>>> > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>>>>>> intended >>>>>>> > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >>>>>>> accept legal >>>>>>> > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not the >>>>>>> intended >>>>>>> > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this document >>>>>>> and do >>>>>>> > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, >>>>>>> nor make >>>>>>> > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Please find below the suggestions so far discussed among IGC >>>>>>> members for >>>>>>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I suggest for the second part that >>>>>>> we >>>>>>> >> identify volunteers for each of the six issue areas to facilitate >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >> discussion. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> It would be great to get your views on the below over the coming >>>>>>> days: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> - What do you think of the proposed format? >>>>>>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to facilitate any of the issue area >>>>>>> >> discussions in part 2? >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>>> >> Best >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Sheetal. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>>>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>>>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>>>> >> Issues (six issues) >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >>>>>>> >> discussed, >>>>>>> >> possible messages) >>>>>>> >> - High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>>>>>> >> - Cybercrime >>>>>>> >> - Ethics >>>>>>> >> - Sustainable Development >>>>>>> >> - Christchurch call >>>>>>> >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>>>>>> >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>>>> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>>>> >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>>>> >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>>>> >> necessitate >>>>>>> >> working together >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael J. Oghia < >>>>>>> mike.oghia at gmail.com> >>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to argue *against* speaking >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> >>> climate change and sustainability, so if people really want to >>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>> >>> that >>>>>>> >>> then great! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. I'd be happy to do a webinar >>>>>>> at some >>>>>>> >>> point (I already have the presentation and have delivered it >>>>>>> before). >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit of this topic. Let's see >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> >>> others say, but know that I am flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Best, >>>>>>> >>> -Michael >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Shorey < >>>>>>> lists at nickshorey.com> >>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and I’m excited to read all the >>>>>>> >>>> interesting topics and activity that’s happening here! >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on sustainability, I politely disagree >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* have an agenda item on this >>>>>>> topic, if >>>>>>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> My reason being is that it appears there is a broad interest in >>>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>> topic, but that many people are not actually aware of all the >>>>>>> activity >>>>>>> >>>> that >>>>>>> >>>> is going on, in particular the work that IRPC has been doing. >>>>>>> From a >>>>>>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked through the IGF schedule, it >>>>>>> was not >>>>>>> >>>> at >>>>>>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session would cover climate change. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, so I reckon a brief agenda >>>>>>> item - >>>>>>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an overview of the work that’s >>>>>>> been >>>>>>> >>>> taking >>>>>>> >>>> place and direct people where to engage - would be an excellent >>>>>>> way to >>>>>>> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell of interest, and >>>>>>> compliment the >>>>>>> >>>> work >>>>>>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more people into the fold and >>>>>>> amplifying >>>>>>> >>>> the >>>>>>> >>>> message. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow this up with a webinar or >>>>>>> >>>> something, >>>>>>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real value to a brief agenda >>>>>>> item >>>>>>> >>>> introducing the topic and current activities, and doing so in >>>>>>> person to >>>>>>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so people can put a face to a name >>>>>>> and have >>>>>>> >>>> someone they can also chat to during the margins of the event. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Nick >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>>>>>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>>>>>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>>>>>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>>>>>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>>>>>> >>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>>>>>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I would like to be involved in the program and share my >>>>>>> experiences. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Arzak >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>>>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>>>>> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Peter Micek < >>>>>>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org> >>>>>>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:27:51 PM >>>>>>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL ; Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>; Michael J. Oghia >>>>>> >; >>>>>>> >>>> governance ; Nick Shorey Lists < >>>>>>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com>; Naman Aggarwal >>>>>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: >>>>>>> planning >>>>>>> >>>> and preparation >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes of the Day 0 meeting to >>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on the new #WhyID coalition >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that digital ID programs must >>>>>>> respect >>>>>>> >>>> good >>>>>>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity norms. These >>>>>>> mandatory ID >>>>>>> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed without a chance for civil >>>>>>> society >>>>>>> >>>> input, and before asking whether and why we need them. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the campaign, ping Naman >>>>>>> Aggarwal >>>>>>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kossi Amessinou < >>>>>>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>> This charter >>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/numerique/Charte-pour-un-internet-libre-et-sur.pdf >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>> is important for all but we can put also the african >>>>>>> declaration (FR >>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/African-Declaration-French-FINAL.pdf >>>>>>> >, >>>>>>> >>>>> EN >>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf >>>>>>> >) >>>>>>> >>>>> on the table. >>>>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, Nnenna Nwakanma < >>>>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel Report on Digital Cooperation >>>>>>> should >>>>>>> >>>>>> be on the agenda. Not just feedback on the report, but >>>>>>> anticipating >>>>>>> >>>>>> CS >>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Following the Christchurch call a Charter >>>>>>> >>>>>> < >>>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/numerique/charte-pour-internet-libre-ouvert-et-sur >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>> was launched. I have also copied and posted what I think is >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> >>>>>> important >>>>>>> >>>>>> Declaration of key governments. Simply put, we need to >>>>>>> discuss how >>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>>> >>>>>> respond to internet governance legislation and regulatory >>>>>>> moves >>>>>>> >>>>>> across the >>>>>>> >>>>>> world. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned, I will be in Berlin >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> N >>>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint statement affirmed by these >>>>>>> countries: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, >>>>>>> Denmark, >>>>>>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>>>>>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, >>>>>>> Latvia, >>>>>>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>>>>>> Republic >>>>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, >>>>>>> and the >>>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>>> >>>>>> States. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >>>>>>> Cyberspace >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Information technology is transforming modern life, driving >>>>>>> >>>>>> innovation >>>>>>> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the sharing of ideas, of >>>>>>> cultures, and >>>>>>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its benefits have brought the >>>>>>> global >>>>>>> >>>>>> community >>>>>>> >>>>>> closer together than ever before in history. Even as we >>>>>>> recognize the >>>>>>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace has brought to our citizens >>>>>>> and strive >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue to reap its benefits, a >>>>>>> challenge to >>>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and non-state actors are using >>>>>>> cyberspace >>>>>>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for irresponsible behavior from >>>>>>> which to >>>>>>> >>>>>> target >>>>>>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our citizens, undermine >>>>>>> democracies and >>>>>>> >>>>>> international institutions and organizations, and undercut >>>>>>> fair >>>>>>> >>>>>> competition >>>>>>> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing ideas when they cannot >>>>>>> create them. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the international community has made >>>>>>> clear that >>>>>>> >>>>>> the international rules-based order should guide state >>>>>>> behavior in >>>>>>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have increasingly coalesced >>>>>>> around an >>>>>>> >>>>>> evolving >>>>>>> >>>>>> framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace >>>>>>> (framework), >>>>>>> >>>>>> which >>>>>>> >>>>>> supports the international rules-based order, affirms the >>>>>>> >>>>>> applicability of >>>>>>> >>>>>> international law to state-on-state behavior, adherence to >>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>> >>>>>> norms >>>>>>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in peacetime, and the >>>>>>> development and >>>>>>> >>>>>> implementation of practical confidence building measures to >>>>>>> help >>>>>>> >>>>>> reduce the >>>>>>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents. All members >>>>>>> of the >>>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed this >>>>>>> framework, >>>>>>> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN Groups of Governmental >>>>>>> Experts >>>>>>> >>>>>> reports >>>>>>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to uphold the international >>>>>>> rules-based >>>>>>> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, implementation, and further >>>>>>> >>>>>> development, >>>>>>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN negotiations of the Open Ended >>>>>>> Working >>>>>>> >>>>>> Group >>>>>>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. We support targeted >>>>>>> cybersecurity >>>>>>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that all responsible states can >>>>>>> implement >>>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>>> >>>>>> framework and better protect their networks from significant >>>>>>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>>>>>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise destabilizing cyber activity. We >>>>>>> reiterate >>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be respected and protected by >>>>>>> states >>>>>>> >>>>>> online, as >>>>>>> >>>>>> well as offline, including when addressing cybersecurity. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold the international >>>>>>> rules-based >>>>>>> >>>>>> order, >>>>>>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in safeguarding the benefits of a free, >>>>>>> open, >>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future generations. When necessary, we >>>>>>> will >>>>>>> >>>>>> work >>>>>>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to hold states accountable when >>>>>>> they >>>>>>> >>>>>> act >>>>>>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, including by taking measures that >>>>>>> are >>>>>>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with international law. There must >>>>>>> be >>>>>>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in cyberspace. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> We call on all states to support the evolving framework and >>>>>>> to join >>>>>>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater accountability and stability in >>>>>>> cyberspace. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> End Text >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> For further information, please contact the Office of the >>>>>>> Coordinator >>>>>>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at SCCI_Press at state.gov. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are interested in discussing the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small working group who has the >>>>>>> capacity to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the session in an inclusive way. >>>>>>> If you're >>>>>>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, if you could email Bruna >>>>>>> and I >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we'll >>>>>>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to support the organisation of the >>>>>>> event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>>>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with everyone once we have some >>>>>>> initial >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>>>>>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've been hoping for some time >>>>>>> that more >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG community would see the value in >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate change and sustainability as it relates to our >>>>>>> work. Indeed, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> many >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives are working on it, albeit >>>>>>> across >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and it's not just data centers, >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can think of as it relates to >>>>>>> technology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at least tries) to limit >>>>>>> itself to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or what's *on* the Internet, >>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that the IG community could >>>>>>> address >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I organised, for >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really spearheading this at the >>>>>>> moment. I >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join with them in support to >>>>>>> address how >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, at the very core, human >>>>>>> rights >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. Instead of briefing everyone >>>>>>> on the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a webinar to anyone interested >>>>>>> about the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also written extensively about >>>>>>> it). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC and leave the CS pre-event >>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that isn't covered at all by the >>>>>>> IGF (the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow focus this year, to put it >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a discussion on climate change >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day zero meeting. This is >>>>>>> something >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread set at NCSG mailing list, >>>>>>> but there >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to facilitate a discussion on these >>>>>>> lines at >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy outcome that would look to the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia and @Nick Shorey >>>>>>> Lists >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have been starting this >>>>>>> conversation at the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am cc'ing them here! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of ethics in a globally >>>>>>> connected >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right action is never out of fashion >>>>>>> , right >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is good risk management … right >>>>>>> attitude >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion for human care …. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ >>>>>>> ‎PDT, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending yet, I will like to be >>>>>>> part of the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber >>>>>>> Crime and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing Economies and Role of Civil >>>>>>> Society." >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here about planning one of the civil >>>>>>> society >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. It's called "Civil society >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners Digital)" in the schedule but it >>>>>>> is *not >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied for it, that's all. It's an >>>>>>> event >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and I would suggest that >>>>>>> members of IGC >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in shaping its agenda. It's been >>>>>>> moved to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a request from the IGF >>>>>>> Secretariat. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the sidelines of RightsCon >>>>>>> earlier this >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the event could focus on sharing >>>>>>> updates on >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps planning for how to input >>>>>>> into them >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First Committee processes on >>>>>>> cyber and >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any matters pertaining to the >>>>>>> IGC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful if you could share your >>>>>>> views on the >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums should we discuss at the civil >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss any topics related to IGC >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these topics (presentations, or >>>>>>> just open >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind we have only 2 hours? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like to see from the pre-event? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be involved in planning the event >>>>>>> (this will >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few hours over the next two >>>>>>> months, I >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you could let me know if you're >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is dependent on funding for many >>>>>>> of us >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that would be great. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D >>>>>>> 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>>> E9E2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>>>>>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication >>>>>>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>>>>>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>>>>>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >>>>>>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>>>>>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>>>>>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>>>>>> >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>>>>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma >>>>>>> parole >>>>>>> >>>>> est >>>>>>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> >>>>> List help: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>> Peter Micek >>>>>>> >>>> General Counsel >>>>>>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>>>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>>>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>>>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> , >>>>>>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 >>>>>>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>> *, >>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>>>>> Member. UN IGF >>>>>>> MAG >>>>>>> Member >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter Micek >>>>>> General Counsel >>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>>> >>>>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>>> < >>>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/express>, our weekly newsletter on digital >>>>>> rights >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Verónica Ferrari >>>>> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >>>>> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> List help: >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Data_All_191112.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 66033 bytes Desc: not available URL: From veronica at apc.org Wed Nov 20 11:08:44 2019 From: veronica at apc.org (Veronica) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:08:44 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> Message-ID: <97ce670f-52d0-7fca-b3d7-6acaa8f5e9ea@apc.org> Hi Sheetal,   Thanks for the update -and to you and Bruna for organizing this. Just wanted to clarify whether APC will be facilitating the breakout on the High-Level Panel. Or are we deciding that during the meeting? We offered help with that group and the one on content moderation, if needed. Just double-checking so we prepare in advance. Thanks and see you all in Berlin. Verónica   Best regards. On 20/11/2019 12:40, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > Bruna and I are looking forward to seeing some of you next week for > the civil society pre-event in Berlin. > > We have about 25 RSVPs so far, and are keeping the webpage updated: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event > > We don't have any facilitators for the content regulation session or > sustainable development break-outs. However, I suggest that we proceed > as planned and at the beginning of the session we agree all the > breakouts and confirm facilitators for each. There may be someone who > wants to run a session on the day and I don't see why that shouldn't > happen! Conversely, if there aren't enough facilitators we can drop a > couple of them. > > Also, thanks to those who filled out the survey. I've attached the > responses (anonymous) in case they're useful to refer to during the > meeting. > > This is the direct link to the event: > https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU0F/pre-event-43-civil-society-coordination-meeting > > *Address and time below: * > Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 > Estrel Saal B > /Sonnenallee 225, 12057 Berlin, Germany > / > > > We look forward to seeing you there! If you have any questions at all > in the meantime, please let us know. > > Safe travels, > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting > / > / > /Part 1 - 30-40 mins?/ > - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) > - Expectations from the event (plenary) > > /Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?/ > Issues (five issues) > > * Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the > issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being > discussed, possible messages) > o Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level > Panel on Digital Cooperation) > o Sustainable Development > o Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) > o State behaviour in cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st Committee and > 3rd Committee)  > o Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') > * Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion > > /Part 3 - 45 mins?/ > Next steps, including IGC internal issues > - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? > - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will > necessitate working together > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:02, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > > Hi all, > > As an update, we've received 11 RSVPs for the pre-event! Looking > forward to seeing you. > > If you're intending to come, please do RSVP here: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > Best > Sheetal > > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 08:23, Michael J. Oghia > > wrote: > > Dear Sheetal, all: > > Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and you > too Bruna). I'm sorry I can't volunteer to facilitate the > sustainable development group, but I have another event that > begins about 30 minutes after the IGC session (this year's Day > 0 is crazy). > > Best, > -Michael > > > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar > > wrote: > > Dear all, > > We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is > great! Please RSVP here if you haven't already done so: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. > > However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for > the break-out group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is > definitely an important area but if we can't find a > facilitator for the session we will unfortunately have to > drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places > at the same time :) As such, please do get in touch if > you'd be interested in facilitating that session. > > Best > Sheetal > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar > > > wrote: > > Dear Veronica, all, > > Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! > I'll note that down. > > Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up > this RSVP (thanks Imran)! > > Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. > The event will be held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 > (Monday) of the IGF. > > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica > > wrote: > > > Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for > putting it together. > > Hi all, > > I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the > list and APC as a Coordinator at the Global Policy > Team. From APC, we will be participating in the > meeting and happy to help with the sessions on > Content Moderation and/or the multi-stakeholder > initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, if > needed. > > ***Best regards. **Verónica * > > ******** > > On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is >> "Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination >> Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November >> 25 from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes >> instead of initiatives, it was suggested >> elsewhere that we should try and develop a >> response to the HLPDC report in some way so >> that's why I put that down as a focus. >> >> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the >> input so far, highlighting the changes in light >> yellow. >> >> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each >> session that would be great :) - any takers? >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> / >> / >> /---------------------------------------/ >> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >> / >> / >> /Part 1 - 30-40 mins?/ >> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >> >> /Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?/ >> Issues (six issues) >> >> * Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g >> each group defines the issue, problem at >> hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >> discussed, possible messages) >> o Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ >> focus on High Level Panel on Digital >> Cooperation) >> o Cybercrime >> o Sustainable Development >> o Content regulation (w/ focus on >> Christchurch call) >> o Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >> Cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st Committee)  >> o Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of >> 'ethics') >> * Plenary: each group shares summary of >> break-out group discussion >> >> /Part 3 - 45 mins?/ >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the >> issues identified? >> - Discussion of other issues including internal >> IGC which will necessitate working together >> >> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek >> > > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes.  >> >>  What is the goal and scope of the ethics >> discussion? I note the recommendation to >> qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I >> mainly hear of ethics in terms of safeguards >> on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >> discussion. If this was meant to cover the >> discussion of fairness and ethics in AI, >> might it not be better to have a 'Emerging >> Technologies' section, where we could talk of >> the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to >> human rights?  >> >> Just on its face, I would hate to see the >> civil society agenda mainly discussing >> emerging technologies through a lens of >> 'ethics.'  >> >> Thanks, >> Peter >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène >> Tungali > > wrote: >> >> Hi Sheetal, all, >> >> My apologies for being silent on this, so >> many things going on in my >> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, >> Sheetal, which looks great to >> me. >> >> I want to echo and support the inputs by >> Frzaneh and Judith which I >> think make sense. >> >> I believe our session is the following, >> as seen on the agenda, right? >> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination >> Meeting >> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >> >> If that's the case, the time hasn't >> changed according to what you said >> in your original email? Please do help >> clarify. >> >> Regards, >> Arsene >> >> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke >> > >: >> > Hi Sheetal >> > This looks good as I hope the >> cybercrime session will be able to address >> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping >> Cybercrime and CS, particularly. >> > Weldone. >> > ____ >> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group >> Executive Editor, >> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media >> [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >> > >> ; >> ITREALMS >> > , NaijaAgroNet >> > ) >> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin >> Plaza, Bolade Junction, Oshodi-Lagos >> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, >> 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >> > >> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in >> Nigeria >> > >> >> > >> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on >> IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >> > * >> > JOIN us!! >> > >> > *Vice President, African Civil Society >> on the Information Society (ACSIS >> > ) >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ >> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The >> information in this document and attachments >> > are confidential and may also be >> privileged information. It is intended >> > only for the use of the named >> recipient. Remmy Nweke does not accept legal >> > responsibility for the contents of this >> e-mail. If you are not the intended >> > recipient, please notify me >> immediately, then delete this document and do >> > not disclose the contents of this >> document to any other person, nor make >> > any copies. Violators may face court >> persecution. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal >> Kumar > > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Please find below the suggestions so >> far discussed among IGC members for >> >> the format of our day 0 event. I >> suggest for the second part that we >> >> identify volunteers for each of the >> six issue areas to facilitate the >> >> discussion. >> >> >> >> It would be great to get your views on >> the below over the coming days: >> >> >> >> - What do you think of the proposed >> format? >> >> - Would you like to volunteer to >> facilitate any of the issue area >> >> discussions in part 2? >> >> >> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing >> from you! >> >> Best >> >> >> >> Sheetal. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and >> Sheetal) >> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >> >> >> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >> >> Issues (six issues) >> >> >> >>    - Breakout led by different >> volunteers (e.g each group defines the >> >>    issue, problem at hand, key >> forums/spaces where issues is being >> >> discussed, >> >>    possible messages) >> >>       - High Level Panel on Digital >> Cooperation >> >>       - Cybercrime >> >>       - Ethics >> >>       - Sustainable Development >> >>       - Christchurch call >> >>       - Advancing Responsible State >> Behavior in Cyberspace >> >>    - Plenary: each group shares >> summary of break-out group discussion >> >> >> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >> >> - How do we work together/collaborate >> on the issues identified? >> >> - Discussion of other issues including >> internal IGC which will >> >> necessitate >> >> working together >> >> >> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael >> J. Oghia > > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Hi everyone, >> >>> >> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to >> argue *against* speaking about >> >>> climate change and sustainability, so >> if people really want to discuss >> >>> that >> >>> then great! >> >>> >> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. >> I'd be happy to do a webinar at some >> >>> point (I already have the >> presentation and have delivered it before). >> >>> >> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit >> of this topic. Let's see what >> >>> others say, but know that I am >> flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> -Michael >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick >> Shorey > > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> Hi everyone, >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and >> I’m excited to read all the >> >>>> interesting topics and activity >> that’s happening here! >> >>>> >> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on >> sustainability, I politely disagree with >> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* >> have an agenda item on this topic, if >> >>>> possible within the schedule. >> >>>> >> >>>> My reason being is that it appears >> there is a broad interest in this >> >>>> topic, but that many people are not >> actually aware of all the activity >> >>>> that >> >>>> is going on, in particular the work >> that IRPC has been doing. From a >> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked >> through the IGF schedule, it was not >> >>>> at >> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session >> would cover climate change. >> >>>> >> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, >> so I reckon a brief agenda item - >> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an >> overview of the work that’s been >> >>>> taking >> >>>> place and direct people where to >> engage - would be an excellent way to >> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell >> of interest, and compliment the >> >>>> work >> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more >> people into the fold and amplifying >> >>>> the >> >>>> message. >> >>>> >> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow >> this up with a webinar or >> >>>> something, >> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real >> value to a brief agenda item >> >>>> introducing the topic and current >> activities, and doing so in person to >> >>>> build energy and focus, and so >> people can put a face to a name and have >> >>>> someone they can also chat to during >> the margins of the event. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> Nick >> >>>> >> >>>> Nick Shorey >> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >> >> > > >> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >> >>>> LinkedIn: >> www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >> >> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan >> > > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Dear Peter, >> >>>> >> >>>> I would like to be involved in the >> program and share my experiences. >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >> >>>> Arzak >> >>>> >> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >> >> >>>> ------------------------------ >> >>>> *From:* >> governance-request at lists.riseup.net >> >> < >> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net >> > >> on behalf of Peter Micek < >> >>>> peter at accessnow.org >> > >> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 >> 6:27:51 PM >> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >> >> > > >> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL > >; Sheetal Kumar < >> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org >> >; Michael >> J. Oghia > >; >> >>>> governance >> > >; >> Nick Shorey Lists < >> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com >> >; Naman >> Aggarwal > > >> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 >> Civil society pre-event: planning >> >>>> and preparation >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi all, >> >>>> >> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes >> of the Day 0 meeting to discuss >> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on >> the new #WhyID coalition and >> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that >> digital ID programs must respect >> >>>> good >> >>>> governance, data privacy, and >> cybersecurity norms. These mandatory ID >> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed >> without a chance for civil society >> >>>> input, and before asking whether and >> why we need them. >> >>>> >> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the >> campaign, ping Naman Aggarwal >> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Peter >> >>>> >> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM >> Kossi Amessinou < >> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >> > wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>> This charter >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> is important for all but we can put >> also the african declaration (FR >> >>>>> >> , >> >>>>> EN >> >>>>> >> ) >> >>>>> on the table. >> >>>>> Thank you. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, >> Nnenna Nwakanma < >> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >> > a >> écrit : >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel >> Report on Digital Cooperation should >> >>>>>> be on  the agenda. Not just >> feedback on the report, but anticipating >> >>>>>> CS >> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >> >>>>>> Following the  Christchurch call a >> Charter >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> was launched.  I have also copied >> and posted what I think is an >> >>>>>> important >> >>>>>> Declaration of  key governments.  >> Simply put, we need to discuss  how >> >>>>>> we >> >>>>>> respond to internet governance >> legislation and regulatory  moves >> >>>>>> across the >> >>>>>> world. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If all goes as planned,  I will be >> in Berlin >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Best >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> N >> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The following text is a joint >> statement affirmed by these countries: >> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, >> Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, >> >>>>>> Estonia, >> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, >> Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, >> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New >> Zealand, Norway, Poland, the Republic >> >>>>>> of >> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, >> Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the >> >>>>>> United >> >>>>>> States. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Begin Text: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing >> Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Information technology is >> transforming modern life, driving >> >>>>>> innovation >> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the >> sharing of ideas, of cultures, and >> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its >> benefits have brought the global >> >>>>>> community >> >>>>>> closer together than ever before >> in history. Even as we recognize the >> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace >> has brought to our citizens and strive >> >>>>>> to >> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue >> to reap its benefits, a challenge to >> >>>>>> this >> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and >> non-state actors are using cyberspace >> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for >> irresponsible behavior from which to >> >>>>>> target >> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our >> citizens, undermine democracies and >> >>>>>> international institutions and >> organizations, and undercut fair >> >>>>>> competition >> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing >> ideas when they cannot create them. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the >> international community has made clear that >> >>>>>> the international rules-based >> order should guide state behavior in >> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have >> increasingly coalesced around an >> >>>>>> evolving >> >>>>>> framework of responsible state >> behavior in cyberspace (framework), >> >>>>>> which >> >>>>>> supports the international >> rules-based order, affirms the >> >>>>>> applicability of >> >>>>>> international law to >> state-on-state behavior, adherence to >> voluntary >> >>>>>> norms >> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in >> peacetime, and the development and >> >>>>>> implementation of practical >> confidence building measures to help >> >>>>>> reduce the >> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from >> cyber incidents. All members of the >> >>>>>> United >> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have >> repeatedly affirmed this framework, >> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN >> Groups of Governmental Experts >> >>>>>> reports >> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to >> uphold the international rules-based >> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, >> implementation, and further >> >>>>>> development, >> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN >> negotiations of the Open Ended Working >> >>>>>> Group >> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. >> We support targeted cybersecurity >> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that >> all responsible states can implement >> >>>>>> this >> >>>>>> framework and better protect their >> networks from significant >> >>>>>> disruptive, >> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise >> destabilizing cyber activity. We reiterate >> >>>>>> that >> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be >> respected and protected by states >> >>>>>> online, as >> >>>>>> well as offline, including when >> addressing cybersecurity. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold >> the international rules-based >> >>>>>> order, >> >>>>>> we recognize our role in >> safeguarding the benefits of a free, open, >> >>>>>> and >> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future >> generations. When necessary, we will >> >>>>>> work >> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to >> hold states accountable when they >> >>>>>> act >> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, >> including by taking measures that are >> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with >> international law. There must be >> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in >> cyberspace. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We call on all states to support >> the evolving framework and to join >> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater >> accountability and stability in cyberspace. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> End Text >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> For further information, please >> contact the Office of the Coordinator >> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at >> SCCI_Press at state.gov >> . >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM >> Sheetal Kumar >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are >> interested in discussing the >> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime >> 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small >> working group who has the capacity to >> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the >> session in an inclusive way. If you're >> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, >> if you could email Bruna and I >> >>>>>>> we'll >> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to >> support the organisation of the event. >> >>>>>>> The >> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with >> everyone once we have some initial >> >>>>>>> ideas to >> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Best >> >>>>>>> Sheetal >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, >> "Michael J. Oghia" < >> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >> > wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've >> been hoping for some time that more >> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG >> community would see the value in >> >>>>>>>> discussing >> >>>>>>>> climate change and >> sustainability as it relates to our work. >> Indeed, >> >>>>>>>> many >> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives >> are working on it, albeit across >> >>>>>>>> sectors >> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and >> it's not just data centers, it's >> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can >> think of as it relates to technology. >> >>>>>>>> While >> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at >> least tries) to limit itself to >> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or >> what's *on* the Internet, the fact >> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that >> the IG community could address >> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see >> the EuroDIG 2017 session >> >>>>>>>> >> >> I organised, for >> >>>>>>>> instance). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really >> spearheading this at the moment. I >> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join >> with them in support to address how >> >>>>>>>> climate >> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, >> at the very core, human rights >> >>>>>>>> issues, as >> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. >> Instead of briefing everyone on the >> >>>>>>>> issue, for >> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a >> webinar to anyone interested about the >> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also >> written extensively about it). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC >> and leave the CS pre-event to >> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that >> isn't covered at all by the IGF (the >> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow >> focus this year, to put it >> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >> >>>>>>>> terms). >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>> -Michael >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM >> Bruna Martins dos Santos < >> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com >> > wrote: >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a >> discussion on climate change and >> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day >> zero meeting. This is something >> >>>>>>>>> thats been >> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread >> set at NCSG mailing list, but there >> >>>>>>>>> seems >> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to >> facilitate a discussion on these lines at >> >>>>>>>>> the igf >> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy >> outcome that would look to the >> >>>>>>>>> matter. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia >> > > and @Nick >> Shorey Lists >> >>>>>>>>> > > have been >> starting this conversation at the >> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am >> cc'ing them here! >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Best, >> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, >> Amali De Silva < >> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >> > a >> écrit : >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of >> ethics in a globally connected >> >>>>>>>>>> society >> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right >> action is never out of fashion , right >> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is >> good risk management … right attitude >> >>>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>>> compassion  for human care …. >> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, >> ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PDT, >> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke >> > > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending >> yet, I will like to be part of the >> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues >> on "Stereotyping of Cyber Crime and >> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing >> Economies and Role of Civil Society." >> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM >> Sheetal Kumar < >> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org >> > wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here >> about planning one of the civil society >> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. >> It's called "Civil society >> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners >> Digital)" in the schedule but it is *not >> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied >> for it, that's all. It's an event >> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and >> I would suggest that members of IGC >> >>>>>>>>>> should >> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in >> shaping its agenda.  It's been moved to >> >>>>>>>>>> from to >> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a >> request from the IGF Secretariat. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the >> sidelines of RightsCon earlier this >> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the >> event could focus on sharing updates on >> >>>>>>>>>> key >> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps >> planning for how to input into them >> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First >> Committee processes on cyber and >> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any >> matters pertaining to the IGC. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful >> if you could share your views on the >> >>>>>>>>>> following >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums >> should we discuss at the civil >> >>>>>>>>>> society >> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss >> any topics related to IGC >> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these >> topics (presentations, or just open >> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind >> we have only 2 hours? >> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like >> to see from the pre-event? >> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be >> involved in planning the event (this will >> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few >> hours over the next two months, I >> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you >> could let me know if you're >> >>>>>>>>>> planning >> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is >> dependent on funding for many of us >> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that >> would be great. >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing >> from you! >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Best >> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >> >>>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL >> PARTNERS DIGITAL >> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury >> Street, London, E1 5JL >> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: >> +44 (0)7739569514  | >> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | >> PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>>>> List help: >> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> -- >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS >> DIGITAL >> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury >> Street, London, E1 5JL >> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 >> (0)7739569514  | >> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP >> Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> --- >> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>>> List help: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>> --- >> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>>> List help: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de >> l'Information et de la Communication >> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >> >> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >> >> > > >> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >> >> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >> >>>>> >> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >> >>>>> >> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >> >> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le >> silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma parole >> >>>>> est >> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> --- >> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> >>>>> List help: >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Peter Micek >> >>>> General Counsel >> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >> >> >> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >> >> >>>> >> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 >> BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >> >>>> >> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >> >>>> >> >>>> , >> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, >> London, E1 5JL >> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 >> (0)7739569514  | >> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP >> Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------ >> **Arsène Tungali* >> * >> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi >> international >> *, >> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl >> *, >> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >> GPG: 523644A0 >> >> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >> < >> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> >> >> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >> >> Member. UN IGF MAG >> >> Member >> >> >> >> -- >> Peter Micek >> General Counsel >> Access Now | accessnow.org >> >> RightsCon | rightscon.org >> >> Pronouns: He/Him >> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 >> 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >> * >> *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>  , >> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 >> 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > -- > Verónica Ferrari > Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > www.apc.org > veronica at apc.org > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > > List help: > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D > 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D > 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 > 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Verónica Ferrari Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org veronica at apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Nov 20 12:04:31 2019 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:04:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: <97ce670f-52d0-7fca-b3d7-6acaa8f5e9ea@apc.org> References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> <97ce670f-52d0-7fca-b3d7-6acaa8f5e9ea@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Veronica, No worries! It would be great if APC can facilitate the session on content moderation. Bruna has offered to facilitate the breakout on the HLP. Would that be ok? Best Sheetal On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 16:08, Veronica wrote: > Hi Sheetal, > > Thanks for the update -and to you and Bruna for organizing this. > > Just wanted to clarify whether APC will be facilitating the breakout on > the High-Level Panel. Or are we deciding that during the meeting? We > offered help with that group and the one on content moderation, if needed. > Just double-checking so we prepare in advance. > > Thanks and see you all in Berlin. > Verónica > > Best regards. On 20/11/2019 12:40, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > > Dear all, > > Bruna and I are looking forward to seeing some of you next week for the > civil society pre-event in Berlin. > > We have about 25 RSVPs so far, and are keeping the webpage updated: > https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event > > We don't have any facilitators for the content regulation session or > sustainable development break-outs. However, I suggest that we proceed as > planned and at the beginning of the session we agree all the breakouts and > confirm facilitators for each. There may be someone who wants to run a > session on the day and I don't see why that shouldn't happen! Conversely, > if there aren't enough facilitators we can drop a couple of them. > > Also, thanks to those who filled out the survey. I've attached the > responses (anonymous) in case they're useful to refer to during the meeting. > > This is the direct link to the event: > https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU0F/pre-event-43-civil-society-coordination-meeting > > *Address and time below: * > Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 > Estrel Saal B *Sonnenallee > 225, 12057 Berlin, Germany > * > > We look forward to seeing you there! If you have any questions at all in > the meantime, please let us know. > > Safe travels, > > Best > Sheetal and Bruna > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting > > *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* > - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) > - Expectations from the event (plenary) > > *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* > Issues (five issues) > > - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines the > issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being discussed, > possible messages) > - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level Panel > on Digital Cooperation) > - Sustainable Development > - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) > - State behaviour in cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st Committee and 3rd > Committee) > - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') > - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion > > *Part 3 - 45 mins?* > Next steps, including IGC internal issues > - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? > - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will necessitate > working together > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:02, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> As an update, we've received 11 RSVPs for the pre-event! Looking forward >> to seeing you. >> >> If you're intending to come, please do RSVP here: >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 08:23, Michael J. Oghia >> wrote: >> >>> Dear Sheetal, all: >>> >>> Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and you too Bruna). >>> I'm sorry I can't volunteer to facilitate the sustainable development >>> group, but I have another event that begins about 30 minutes after the IGC >>> session (this year's Day 0 is crazy). >>> >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which is great! Please >>>> RSVP here if you haven't already done so: >>>> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >>>> >>>> We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. >>>> >>>> However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator for the break-out >>>> group on 'Sustainable Development'. This is definitely an important area >>>> but if we can't find a facilitator for the session we will unfortunately >>>> have to drop it because Bruna and I can only be in so many places at the >>>> same time :) As such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested in >>>> facilitating that session. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal >>>> >>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Veronica, all, >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for volunteering to lead those sessions! I'll note that >>>>> down. >>>>> >>>>> Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set up this RSVP (thanks >>>>> Imran)! >>>>> >>>>> Please RSVP as this will greatly help with planning. The event will be >>>>> held from 12:35-15:35 on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. >>>>> >>>>> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> Sheetal. >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and for putting it together. >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined the list and APC as a >>>>>> Coordinator at the Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be participating >>>>>> in the meeting and happy to help with the sessions on Content Moderation >>>>>> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High Panel on Digital Cooperation, >>>>>> if needed. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Best regards. ** Verónica * >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event is "Pre-event 43: Civil >>>>>> Society Coordination Meeting" and is taking place on Monday November 25 >>>>>> from 12:35 to 15:35. On addressing themes instead of initiatives, it was >>>>>> suggested elsewhere that we should try and develop a response to the HLPDC >>>>>> report in some way so that's why I put that down as a focus. >>>>>> >>>>>> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect the input so far, >>>>>> highlighting the changes in light yellow. >>>>>> >>>>>> If we could get volunteer facilitators for each session that would be >>>>>> great :) - any takers? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>> >>>>>> *---------------------------------------* >>>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>>> >>>>>> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>>> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>>> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>>> >>>>>> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>>> Issues (six issues) >>>>>> >>>>>> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines >>>>>> the issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is being >>>>>> discussed, possible messages) >>>>>> - Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High Level >>>>>> Panel on Digital Cooperation) >>>>>> - Cybercrime >>>>>> - Sustainable Development >>>>>> - Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >>>>>> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace (w/ focus >>>>>> on 1st Committee) >>>>>> - Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >>>>>> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>>> discussion >>>>>> >>>>>> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>>> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>>> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>>> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>>> necessitate working together >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into themes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the goal and scope of the ethics discussion? I note the >>>>>>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>>>>>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, which would go beyond a data oriented >>>>>>> discussion. If this was meant to cover the discussion of fairness and >>>>>>> ethics in AI, might it not be better to have a 'Emerging Technologies' >>>>>>> section, where we could talk of the different approaches to AI, blockchain, >>>>>>> 5g, etc., from ethics to data protection to human rights? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just on its face, I would hate to see the civil society agenda >>>>>>> mainly discussing emerging technologies through a lens of 'ethics.' >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène Tungali < >>>>>>> arsenebaguma at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My apologies for being silent on this, so many things going on in my >>>>>>>> world. Thanks for suggesting an outline, Sheetal, which looks great >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I want to echo and support the inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>>>>>>> think make sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I believe our session is the following, as seen on the agenda, >>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >>>>>>>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If that's the case, the time hasn't changed according to what you >>>>>>>> said >>>>>>>> in your original email? Please do help clarify. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Arsene >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy Nweke < >>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net>: >>>>>>>> > Hi Sheetal >>>>>>>> > This looks good as I hope the cybercrime session will be able to >>>>>>>> address >>>>>>>> > and accommodate issues of Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>>>>>>> particularly. >>>>>>>> > Weldone. >>>>>>>> > ____ >>>>>>>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>>>>>>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group Executive Editor, >>>>>>>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>>>>>>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>>>>>>> > ; ITREALMS >>>>>>>> > , NaijaAgroNet >>>>>>>> > ) >>>>>>>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>>>>>>> Oshodi-Lagos >>>>>>>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage in Nigeria >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>>>>>>> > * >>>>>>>> > JOIN us!! >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > *Vice President, African Civil Society on the Information Society >>>>>>>> (ACSIS >>>>>>>> > ) >>>>>>>> > _________________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The information in this document and >>>>>>>> attachments >>>>>>>> > are confidential and may also be privileged information. It is >>>>>>>> intended >>>>>>>> > only for the use of the named recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >>>>>>>> accept legal >>>>>>>> > responsibility for the contents of this e-mail. If you are not >>>>>>>> the intended >>>>>>>> > recipient, please notify me immediately, then delete this >>>>>>>> document and do >>>>>>>> > not disclose the contents of this document to any other person, >>>>>>>> nor make >>>>>>>> > any copies. Violators may face court persecution. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Please find below the suggestions so far discussed among IGC >>>>>>>> members for >>>>>>>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I suggest for the second part >>>>>>>> that we >>>>>>>> >> identify volunteers for each of the six issue areas to >>>>>>>> facilitate the >>>>>>>> >> discussion. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> It would be great to get your views on the below over the coming >>>>>>>> days: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> - What do you think of the proposed format? >>>>>>>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to facilitate any of the issue area >>>>>>>> >> discussions in part 2? >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Thank you, looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>>>> >> Best >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Sheetal. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>>>>>>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>>>>>>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>>>>>>> >> Issues (six issues) >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> - Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group >>>>>>>> defines the >>>>>>>> >> issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is >>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>> >> discussed, >>>>>>>> >> possible messages) >>>>>>>> >> - High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>>>>>>> >> - Cybercrime >>>>>>>> >> - Ethics >>>>>>>> >> - Sustainable Development >>>>>>>> >> - Christchurch call >>>>>>>> >> - Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>>>>>>> >> - Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group >>>>>>>> discussion >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>>>>>>> >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>>>>>>> >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >>>>>>>> >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >>>>>>>> >> necessitate >>>>>>>> >> working together >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, Michael J. Oghia < >>>>>>>> mike.oghia at gmail.com> >>>>>>>> >> wrote: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never try to argue *against* speaking >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> >>> climate change and sustainability, so if people really want to >>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>> >>> that >>>>>>>> >>> then great! >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> This is a good suggestion as well. I'd be happy to do a webinar >>>>>>>> at some >>>>>>>> >>> point (I already have the presentation and have delivered it >>>>>>>> before). >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the pursuit of this topic. Let's see >>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>> >>> others say, but know that I am flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>> -Michael >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM Nick Shorey < >>>>>>>> lists at nickshorey.com> >>>>>>>> >>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, and I’m excited to read all the >>>>>>>> >>>> interesting topics and activity that’s happening here! >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on sustainability, I politely >>>>>>>> disagree with >>>>>>>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we *do* have an agenda item on this >>>>>>>> topic, if >>>>>>>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> My reason being is that it appears there is a broad interest >>>>>>>> in this >>>>>>>> >>>> topic, but that many people are not actually aware of all the >>>>>>>> activity >>>>>>>> >>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>> is going on, in particular the work that IRPC has been doing. >>>>>>>> From a >>>>>>>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I looked through the IGF schedule, >>>>>>>> it was not >>>>>>>> >>>> at >>>>>>>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC session would cover climate change. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in this, so I reckon a brief agenda >>>>>>>> item - >>>>>>>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering an overview of the work that’s >>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>> >>>> taking >>>>>>>> >>>> place and direct people where to engage - would be an >>>>>>>> excellent way to >>>>>>>> >>>> raise awareness, build a groundswell of interest, and >>>>>>>> compliment the >>>>>>>> >>>> work >>>>>>>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing more people into the fold and >>>>>>>> amplifying >>>>>>>> >>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>> message. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then follow this up with a webinar or >>>>>>>> >>>> something, >>>>>>>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is real value to a brief agenda >>>>>>>> item >>>>>>>> >>>> introducing the topic and current activities, and doing so in >>>>>>>> person to >>>>>>>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so people can put a face to a name >>>>>>>> and have >>>>>>>> >>>> someone they can also chat to during the margins of the event. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Nick >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>>>>>>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>>>>>>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>>>>>>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>>>>>>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>>>>>>> >>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>>>>>>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak Khan >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I would like to be involved in the program and share my >>>>>>>> experiences. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Arzak >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>>>>>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>>> >>>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>>>>>> >>>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of Peter Micek >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org> >>>>>>>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, 2019 6:27:51 PM >>>>>>>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL ; Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org>; Michael J. Oghia < >>>>>>>> mike.oghia at gmail.com>; >>>>>>>> >>>> governance ; Nick Shorey Lists < >>>>>>>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com>; Naman Aggarwal >>>>>>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: >>>>>>>> planning >>>>>>>> >>>> and preparation >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 minutes of the Day 0 meeting to >>>>>>>> discuss >>>>>>>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and update on the new #WhyID coalition >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts that digital ID programs must >>>>>>>> respect >>>>>>>> >>>> good >>>>>>>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and cybersecurity norms. These >>>>>>>> mandatory ID >>>>>>>> >>>> programmes are quickly being imposed without a chance for >>>>>>>> civil society >>>>>>>> >>>> input, and before asking whether and why we need them. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved in the campaign, ping Naman >>>>>>>> Aggarwal >>>>>>>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>> >>>> Peter >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kossi Amessinou < >>>>>>>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>> This charter >>>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/directions_services/numerique/Charte-pour-un-internet-libre-et-sur.pdf >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> is important for all but we can put also the african >>>>>>>> declaration (FR >>>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/African-Declaration-French-FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >, >>>>>>>> >>>>> EN >>>>>>>> >>>>> < >>>>>>>> http://africaninternetrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/African-Declaration-English-FINAL.pdf >>>>>>>> >) >>>>>>>> >>>>> on the table. >>>>>>>> >>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, Nnenna Nwakanma < >>>>>>>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level Panel Report on Digital >>>>>>>> Cooperation should >>>>>>>> >>>>>> be on the agenda. Not just feedback on the report, but >>>>>>>> anticipating >>>>>>>> >>>>>> CS >>>>>>>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Following the Christchurch call a Charter >>>>>>>> >>>>>> < >>>>>>>> https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/numerique/charte-pour-internet-libre-ouvert-et-sur >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>> was launched. I have also copied and posted what I think is >>>>>>>> an >>>>>>>> >>>>>> important >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Declaration of key governments. Simply put, we need to >>>>>>>> discuss how >>>>>>>> >>>>>> we >>>>>>>> >>>>>> respond to internet governance legislation and regulatory >>>>>>>> moves >>>>>>>> >>>>>> across the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned, I will be in Berlin >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> N >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint statement affirmed by these >>>>>>>> countries: >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, the Czech Republic, >>>>>>>> Denmark, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, >>>>>>>> Latvia, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>>>>>>> Republic >>>>>>>> >>>>>> of >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, >>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>>>> >>>>>> States. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in >>>>>>>> Cyberspace >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Information technology is transforming modern life, driving >>>>>>>> >>>>>> innovation >>>>>>>> >>>>>> and productivity, facilitating the sharing of ideas, of >>>>>>>> cultures, and >>>>>>>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. Its benefits have brought the >>>>>>>> global >>>>>>>> >>>>>> community >>>>>>>> >>>>>> closer together than ever before in history. Even as we >>>>>>>> recognize the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that cyberspace has brought to our citizens >>>>>>>> and strive >>>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can continue to reap its benefits, a >>>>>>>> challenge to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and non-state actors are using >>>>>>>> cyberspace >>>>>>>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform for irresponsible behavior from >>>>>>>> which to >>>>>>>> >>>>>> target >>>>>>>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and our citizens, undermine >>>>>>>> democracies and >>>>>>>> >>>>>> international institutions and organizations, and undercut >>>>>>>> fair >>>>>>>> >>>>>> competition >>>>>>>> >>>>>> in our global economy by stealing ideas when they cannot >>>>>>>> create them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the international community has made >>>>>>>> clear that >>>>>>>> >>>>>> the international rules-based order should guide state >>>>>>>> behavior in >>>>>>>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states have increasingly coalesced >>>>>>>> around an >>>>>>>> >>>>>> evolving >>>>>>>> >>>>>> framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace >>>>>>>> (framework), >>>>>>>> >>>>>> which >>>>>>>> >>>>>> supports the international rules-based order, affirms the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> applicability of >>>>>>>> >>>>>> international law to state-on-state behavior, adherence to >>>>>>>> voluntary >>>>>>>> >>>>>> norms >>>>>>>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior in peacetime, and the >>>>>>>> development and >>>>>>>> >>>>>> implementation of practical confidence building measures to >>>>>>>> help >>>>>>>> >>>>>> reduce the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming from cyber incidents. All members >>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>> United >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have repeatedly affirmed this >>>>>>>> framework, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> articulated in three successive UN Groups of Governmental >>>>>>>> Experts >>>>>>>> >>>>>> reports >>>>>>>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment to uphold the international >>>>>>>> rules-based >>>>>>>> >>>>>> order and encourage its adherence, implementation, and >>>>>>>> further >>>>>>>> >>>>>> development, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN negotiations of the Open Ended >>>>>>>> Working >>>>>>>> >>>>>> Group >>>>>>>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental Experts. We support targeted >>>>>>>> cybersecurity >>>>>>>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure that all responsible states can >>>>>>>> implement >>>>>>>> >>>>>> this >>>>>>>> >>>>>> framework and better protect their networks from significant >>>>>>>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise destabilizing cyber activity. We >>>>>>>> reiterate >>>>>>>> >>>>>> that >>>>>>>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must be respected and protected by >>>>>>>> states >>>>>>>> >>>>>> online, as >>>>>>>> >>>>>> well as offline, including when addressing cybersecurity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> As responsible states that uphold the international >>>>>>>> rules-based >>>>>>>> >>>>>> order, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in safeguarding the benefits of a >>>>>>>> free, open, >>>>>>>> >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future generations. When necessary, we >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> >>>>>> work >>>>>>>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis to hold states accountable >>>>>>>> when they >>>>>>>> >>>>>> act >>>>>>>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, including by taking measures >>>>>>>> that are >>>>>>>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent with international law. There >>>>>>>> must be >>>>>>>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior in cyberspace. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> We call on all states to support the evolving framework and >>>>>>>> to join >>>>>>>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater accountability and stability in >>>>>>>> cyberspace. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> End Text >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> For further information, please contact the Office of the >>>>>>>> Coordinator >>>>>>>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at SCCI_Press at state.gov. >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 PM Sheetal Kumar >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people are interested in discussing the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a small working group who has the >>>>>>>> capacity to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of the session in an inclusive way. >>>>>>>> If you're >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of that, if you could email Bruna >>>>>>>> and I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> we'll >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to support the organisation of the >>>>>>>> event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise with everyone once we have some >>>>>>>> initial >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise the event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. I've been hoping for some time >>>>>>>> that more >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG community would see the value in >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate change and sustainability as it relates to our >>>>>>>> work. Indeed, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> different groups and initiatives are working on it, albeit >>>>>>>> across >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – and it's not just data centers, >>>>>>>> it's >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you can think of as it relates to >>>>>>>> technology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends (or at least tries) to limit >>>>>>>> itself to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes or what's *on* the Internet, >>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways that the IG community could >>>>>>>> address >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I organised, for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is really spearheading this at the >>>>>>>> moment. I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to join with them in support to >>>>>>>> address how >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> climate >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability are, at the very core, human >>>>>>>> rights >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit redundancy. Instead of briefing everyone >>>>>>>> on the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a webinar to anyone interested >>>>>>>> about the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've also written extensively about >>>>>>>> it). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support IRPC and leave the CS >>>>>>>> pre-event to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic that isn't covered at all by the >>>>>>>> IGF (the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather narrow focus this year, to put it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth considering a discussion on climate >>>>>>>> change and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our day zero meeting. This is >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different thread set at NCSG mailing list, >>>>>>>> but there >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to facilitate a discussion on these >>>>>>>> lines at >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some policy outcome that would look to >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia and @Nick Shorey >>>>>>>> Lists >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> have been starting this >>>>>>>> conversation at the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am cc'ing them here! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> a écrit : >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the teaching of ethics in a globally >>>>>>>> connected >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right action is never out of fashion >>>>>>>> , right >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action is good risk management … right >>>>>>>> attitude >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion for human care …. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ >>>>>>>> ‎AM‎ ‎PDT, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of attending yet, I will like to be >>>>>>>> part of the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber >>>>>>>> Crime and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing Economies and Role of Civil >>>>>>>> Society." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here about planning one of the >>>>>>>> civil society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF session. It's called "Civil society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners Digital)" in the schedule but >>>>>>>> it is *not >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just applied for it, that's all. It's an >>>>>>>> event >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil society, and I would suggest that >>>>>>>> members of IGC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in shaping its agenda. It's been >>>>>>>> moved to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm following a request from the IGF >>>>>>>> Secretariat. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on the sidelines of RightsCon >>>>>>>> earlier this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that the event could focus on sharing >>>>>>>> updates on >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and perhaps planning for how to input >>>>>>>> into them >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN First Committee processes on >>>>>>>> cyber and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss any matters pertaining to the >>>>>>>> IGC. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be grateful if you could share your >>>>>>>> views on the >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or forums should we discuss at the >>>>>>>> civil >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to discuss any topics related to IGC >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss these topics (presentations, or >>>>>>>> just open >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in mind we have only 2 hours? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you like to see from the pre-event? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be involved in planning the event >>>>>>>> (this will >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a few hours over the next two >>>>>>>> months, I >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if you could let me know if you're >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this is dependent on funding for >>>>>>>> many of us >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication that would be great. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to hearing from you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D >>>>>>>> 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >>>>>>>> E9E2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> >>>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>>>>>>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de l'Information et de la Communication >>>>>>>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>>>>>>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>>>>>>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 Cotonou - Bénin >>>>>>>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>>>>>>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>>>>>>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>>>>>>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou | @bigf >>>>>>>> >>>>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>>>>>>> >>>>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>>>>>>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma >>>>>>>> parole >>>>>>>> >>>>> est >>>>>>>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>>>>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>>>> >>>>> List help: >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>> Peter Micek >>>>>>>> >>>> General Counsel >>>>>>>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>>>>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>>>>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>>>>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> , >>>>>>>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> -- >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>>> 0603 >>>>>>>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ------------------------ >>>>>>>> **Arsène Tungali* * >>>>>>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>>>>>> *, >>>>>>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>>>>>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>>>>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>>>>>> < >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>>>>>> Member. UN IGF >>>>>>>> MAG >>>>>>>> Member >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Peter Micek >>>>>>> General Counsel >>>>>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>>>>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>>>>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>>>>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>>>>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>>>>> < >>>>>>> https://www.accessnow.org/express>, our weekly newsletter on >>>>>>> digital rights >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Verónica Ferrari >>>>>> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >>>>>> Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: >>>> List help: >>>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> > > -- > > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -- > Verónica Ferrari > Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgveronica at apc.org > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veronica at apc.org Wed Nov 20 12:22:46 2019 From: veronica at apc.org (Veronica) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 14:22:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] IGF 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning and preparation In-Reply-To: References: <837f6563-090b-c0ed-868c-148bb125973e@apc.org> <97ce670f-52d0-7fca-b3d7-6acaa8f5e9ea@apc.org> Message-ID: Sounds great! We can help with that one. Thanks for the clarifications and see you soon! On 20/11/2019 14:04, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Hi Veronica, > > No worries! > > It would be great if APC can facilitate the session on content > moderation. Bruna has offered to facilitate the breakout on the HLP. > Would that be ok? > > Best > Sheetal > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 16:08, Veronica > wrote: > > Hi Sheetal, >   > Thanks for the update -and to you and Bruna for organizing this. > > Just wanted to clarify whether APC will be facilitating the > breakout on the High-Level Panel. Or are we deciding that during > the meeting? We offered help with that group and the one on > content moderation, if needed. Just double-checking so we prepare > in advance. > > Thanks and see you all in Berlin. > Verónica > >   > Best regards. On 20/11/2019 12:40, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Bruna and I are looking forward to seeing some of you next week >> for the civil society pre-event in Berlin. >> >> We have about 25 RSVPs so far, and are keeping the webpage >> updated: https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event >> >> We don't have any facilitators for the content regulation session >> or sustainable development break-outs. However, I suggest that we >> proceed as planned and at the beginning of the session we agree >> all the breakouts and confirm facilitators for each. There may be >> someone who wants to run a session on the day and I don't see why >> that shouldn't happen! Conversely, if there aren't enough >> facilitators we can drop a couple of them. >> >> Also, thanks to those who filled out the survey. I've attached >> the responses (anonymous) in case they're useful to refer to >> during the meeting. >> >> This is the direct link to the event: >> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU0F/pre-event-43-civil-society-coordination-meeting >> >> *Address and time below: * >> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >> Estrel Saal B >> /Sonnenallee 225, 12057 Berlin, Germany >> / >> >> >> We look forward to seeing you there! If you have any questions at >> all in the meantime, please let us know. >> >> Safe travels, >> >> Best >> Sheetal and Bruna >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination Meeting >> / >> / >> /Part 1 - 30-40 mins?/ >> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >> >> /Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?/ >> Issues (five issues) >> >> * Breakout led by different volunteers (e.g each group defines >> the issue, problem at hand, key forums/spaces where issues is >> being discussed, possible messages) >> o Multistakeholder initiatives in IG (w/ focus on High >> Level Panel on Digital Cooperation) >> o Sustainable Development >> o Content regulation (w/ focus on Christchurch call) >> o State behaviour in cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st Committee >> and 3rd Committee)  >> o Emerging technologies (w/ discussion of 'ethics') >> * Plenary: each group shares summary of break-out group discussion >> >> /Part 3 - 45 mins?/ >> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >> - How do we work together/collaborate on the issues identified? >> - Discussion of other issues including internal IGC which will >> necessitate working together >> >> >> On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 19:02, Sheetal Kumar >> > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> As an update, we've received 11 RSVPs for the pre-event! >> Looking forward to seeing you. >> >> If you're intending to come, please do RSVP here: >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 08:23, Michael J. Oghia >> > wrote: >> >> Dear Sheetal, all: >> >> Thank you so much for all your work on this Sheetal (and >> you too Bruna). I'm sorry I can't volunteer to >> facilitate the sustainable development group, but I have >> another event that begins about 30 minutes after the IGC >> session (this year's Day 0 is crazy). >> >> Best, >> -Michael >> >> >> >> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 6:23 PM Sheetal Kumar >> > >> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> We've received a few RSVPs for the day 0 event, which >> is great! Please RSVP here if you haven't already >> done so: >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> We will also publish the agenda on the webpage. >> >> However, before we do, we don't have any facilitator >> for the break-out group on 'Sustainable Development'. >> This is definitely an important area but if we can't >> find a facilitator for the session we will >> unfortunately have to drop it because Bruna and I can >> only be in so many places at the same time :) As >> such, please do get in touch if you'd be interested >> in facilitating that session. >> >> Best >> Sheetal >> >> On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 11:26, Sheetal Kumar >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear Veronica, all, >> >> Thank you for volunteering to lead those >> sessions! I'll note that down. >> >> Also, for all those planning to attend, we've set >> up this RSVP (thanks Imran)! >> >> Please RSVP as this will greatly help with >> planning. The event will be held from 12:35-15:35 >> on day 0 (Monday) of the IGF. >> >> https://igcaucus.org/rsvp-0-day-event/ >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Thu, 24 Oct 2019 at 17:08, Veronica >> > wrote: >> >> >> Sheetal, thanks for sharing the schedule and >> for putting it together. >> >> Hi all, >> >> I am Verónica Ferrari and I recently joined >> the list and APC as a Coordinator at the >> Global Policy Team. From APC, we will be >> participating in the meeting and happy to >> help with the sessions on Content Moderation >> and/or the multi-stakeholder initiatives/High >> Panel on Digital Cooperation, if needed. >> >> ***Best regards. **Verónica * >> >> ******** >> >> On 22/10/2019 13:45, Sheetal Kumar wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks for the inputs! To confirm the event >>> is "Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination >>> Meeting" and is taking place on Monday >>> November 25 from 12:35 to 15:35. On >>> addressing themes instead of initiatives, it >>> was suggested elsewhere that we should try >>> and develop a response to the HLPDC report >>> in some way so that's why I put that down as >>> a focus. >>> >>> I've adapted the schedule below to reflect >>> the input so far, highlighting the changes >>> in light yellow. >>> >>> If we could get volunteer facilitators for >>> each session that would be great :) - any >>> takers? >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal >>> / >>> / >>> /---------------------------------------/ >>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society Coordination >>> Meeting >>> / >>> / >>> /Part 1 - 30-40 mins?/ >>> - Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna and Sheetal) >>> - Expectations from the event (plenary) >>> >>> /Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?/ >>> Issues (six issues) >>> >>> * Breakout led by different volunteers >>> (e.g each group defines the issue, >>> problem at hand, key forums/spaces where >>> issues is being discussed, possible >>> messages) >>> o Multistakeholder initiatives in IG >>> (w/ focus on High Level Panel on >>> Digital Cooperation) >>> o Cybercrime >>> o Sustainable Development >>> o Content regulation (w/ focus on >>> Christchurch call) >>> o Advancing Responsible State Behavior >>> in Cyberspace (w/ focus on 1st >>> Committee)  >>> o Emerging technologies (w/ discussion >>> of 'ethics') >>> * Plenary: each group shares summary of >>> break-out group discussion >>> >>> /Part 3 - 45 mins?/ >>> Next steps, including IGC internal issues >>> - How do we work together/collaborate on the >>> issues identified? >>> - Discussion of other issues including >>> internal IGC which will necessitate working >>> together >>> >>> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 19:48, Peter Micek >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I agree with Farzaneh on combining into >>> themes.  >>> >>>  What is the goal and scope of the >>> ethics discussion? I note the >>> recommendation to qualify it as 'ethical >>> use of data.' But I mainly hear of >>> ethics in terms of safeguards on AI, >>> which would go beyond a data oriented >>> discussion. If this was meant to cover >>> the discussion of fairness and ethics in >>> AI, might it not be better to have a >>> 'Emerging Technologies' section, where >>> we could talk of the different >>> approaches to AI, blockchain, 5g, etc., >>> from ethics to data protection to human >>> rights?  >>> >>> Just on its face, I would hate to see >>> the civil society agenda mainly >>> discussing emerging technologies through >>> a lens of 'ethics.'  >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM Arsène >>> Tungali >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sheetal, all, >>> >>> My apologies for being silent on >>> this, so many things going on in my >>> world. Thanks for suggesting an >>> outline, Sheetal, which looks great to >>> me. >>> >>> I want to echo and support the >>> inputs by Frzaneh and Judith which I >>> think make sense. >>> >>> I believe our session is the >>> following, as seen on the agenda, right? >>> Pre-event 43: Civil Society >>> Coordination Meeting >>> Monday November 25, 2019 12:35 - 15:35 >>> >>> If that's the case, the time hasn't >>> changed according to what you said >>> in your original email? Please do >>> help clarify. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Arsene >>> >>> 2019-10-20 10:28 UTC+03:00, Remmy >>> Nweke >> >: >>> > Hi Sheetal >>> > This looks good as I hope the >>> cybercrime session will be able to >>> address >>> > and accommodate issues of >>> Stereotyping Cybercrime and CS, >>> particularly. >>> > Weldone. >>> > ____ >>> > REMMY NWEKE, mNGE, >>> > Lead Consulting Strategist/Group >>> Executive Editor, >>> > DigitalSENSE Africa Media >>> [*Multiple-award winning medium*] >>> > (DigitalSENSE Business News >>> > >>> ; >>> ITREALMS >>> > , >>> NaijaAgroNet >>> > ) >>> > Block F1, Shop 133 Moyosore >>> Aboderin Plaza, Bolade Junction, >>> Oshodi-Lagos >>> > M: 234-8033592762, 8023122558, >>> 8051000475, T: @ITRealms >>> > >>> > Author: A Decade of ICT Reportage >>> in Nigeria >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > *2020 Nigeria DigitalSENSE Forum >>> on IG4D & Nigeria IPv6 Roundtable >>> > >>> * >>> > JOIN us!! >>> > >>> > *Vice President, African Civil >>> Society on the Information Society >>> (ACSIS >>> > ) >>> > >>> _________________________________________________________________ >>> > *Confidentiality Notice:* The >>> information in this document and >>> attachments >>> > are confidential and may also be >>> privileged information. It is intended >>> > only for the use of the named >>> recipient. Remmy Nweke does not >>> accept legal >>> > responsibility for the contents of >>> this e-mail. If you are not the intended >>> > recipient, please notify me >>> immediately, then delete this >>> document and do >>> > not disclose the contents of this >>> document to any other person, nor make >>> > any copies. Violators may face >>> court persecution. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 4:26 PM >>> Sheetal Kumar >>> >> > >>> > wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> Please find below the suggestions >>> so far discussed among IGC members for >>> >> the format of our day 0 event. I >>> suggest for the second part that we >>> >> identify volunteers for each of >>> the six issue areas to facilitate the >>> >> discussion. >>> >> >>> >> It would be great to get your >>> views on the below over the coming days: >>> >> >>> >> - What do you think of the >>> proposed format? >>> >> - Would you like to volunteer to >>> facilitate any of the issue area >>> >> discussions in part 2? >>> >> >>> >> Thank you, looking forward to >>> hearing from you! >>> >> Best >>> >> >>> >> Sheetal. >>> >> >>> >> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >> *Part 1 - 30-40 mins?* >>> >> Welcome and update on IGC (Bruna >>> and Sheetal) >>> >> Expectations from the event (plenary) >>> >> >>> >> *Part 2 - 1-1.5 hours?* >>> >> Issues (six issues) >>> >> >>> >>    - Breakout led by different >>> volunteers (e.g each group defines the >>> >>    issue, problem at hand, key >>> forums/spaces where issues is being >>> >> discussed, >>> >>    possible messages) >>> >>       - High Level Panel on >>> Digital Cooperation >>> >>       - Cybercrime >>> >>       - Ethics >>> >>       - Sustainable Development >>> >>       - Christchurch call >>> >>       - Advancing Responsible >>> State Behavior in Cyberspace >>> >>    - Plenary: each group shares >>> summary of break-out group discussion >>> >> >>> >> *Part 3 - 45 mins?* >>> >> Next steps, including IGC >>> internal issues >>> >> - How do we work >>> together/collaborate on the issues >>> identified? >>> >> - Discussion of other issues >>> including internal IGC which will >>> >> necessitate >>> >> working together >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 10:10, >>> Michael J. Oghia >>> >> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> >>> >>> Nick, to clarify, I will never >>> try to argue *against* speaking about >>> >>> climate change and >>> sustainability, so if people really >>> want to discuss >>> >>> that >>> >>> then great! >>> >>> >>> >>> This is a good suggestion as >>> well. I'd be happy to do a webinar >>> at some >>> >>> point (I already have the >>> presentation and have delivered it >>> before). >>> >>> >>> >>> Again, I won't discourage the >>> pursuit of this topic. Let's see what >>> >>> others say, but know that I am >>> flexible (topic-wide) regardless! >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -Michael >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 11:03 AM >>> Nick Shorey >> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks Bruna for linking me in, >>> and I’m excited to read all the >>> >>>> interesting topics and activity >>> that’s happening here! >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Regarding an agenda item on >>> sustainability, I politely disagree with >>> >>>> Michael and suggest that we >>> *do* have an agenda item on this >>> topic, if >>> >>>> possible within the schedule. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> My reason being is that it >>> appears there is a broad interest in >>> this >>> >>>> topic, but that many people are >>> not actually aware of all the activity >>> >>>> that >>> >>>> is going on, in particular the >>> work that IRPC has been doing. From a >>> >>>> personal standpoint, when I >>> looked through the IGF schedule, it >>> was not >>> >>>> at >>> >>>> all obvious that the IRPC >>> session would cover climate change. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I’m sure I won’t be alone in >>> this, so I reckon a brief agenda item - >>> >>>> maybe with Michael delivering >>> an overview of the work that’s been >>> >>>> taking >>> >>>> place and direct people where >>> to engage - would be an excellent way to >>> >>>> raise awareness, build a >>> groundswell of interest, and >>> compliment the >>> >>>> work >>> >>>> of other tracks by bringing >>> more people into the fold and amplifying >>> >>>> the >>> >>>> message. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Michael maybe you could then >>> follow this up with a webinar or >>> >>>> something, >>> >>>> but I strongly believe there is >>> real value to a brief agenda item >>> >>>> introducing the topic and >>> current activities, and doing so in >>> person to >>> >>>> build energy and focus, and so >>> people can put a face to a name and have >>> >>>> someone they can also chat to >>> during the margins of the event. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Kind regards, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Nick >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Nick Shorey >>> >>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 >>> >>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> Skype: nick.shorey >>> >>>> Twitter: @nickshorey >>> >>>> LinkedIn: >>> www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >>> >>> >>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 26 Sep 2019, at 16:35, Arzak >>> Khan >> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Dear Peter, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would like to be involved in >>> the program and share my experiences. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Arzak >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Get Outlook for Android >>> >>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>> >>>> *From:* >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net >>> >>> < >>> >>>> >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net >>> > >>> on behalf of Peter Micek < >>> >>>> peter at accessnow.org >>> > >>> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 26, >>> 2019 6:27:51 PM >>> >>>> *To:* amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> *Cc:* MYGMAIL >>> >> >; >>> Sheetal Kumar < >>> >>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org >>> >; >>> Michael J. Oghia >>> >> >; >>> >>>> governance >>> >> >; >>> Nick Shorey Lists < >>> >>>> lists at nickshorey.com >>> >; >>> Naman Aggarwal >> > >>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] IGF >>> 2019 Civil society pre-event: planning >>> >>>> and preparation >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would like to use about 5 >>> minutes of the Day 0 meeting to discuss >>> >>>> digital ID programmes, and >>> update on the new #WhyID coalition and >>> >>>> statement. The campaign asserts >>> that digital ID programs must respect >>> >>>> good >>> >>>> governance, data privacy, and >>> cybersecurity norms. These mandatory ID >>> >>>> programmes are quickly being >>> imposed without a chance for civil >>> society >>> >>>> input, and before asking >>> whether and why we need them. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> If you'd like to get involved >>> in the campaign, ping Naman Aggarwal >>> >>>> (cc'd) at Access Now. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >>>> Peter >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 10:28 >>> PM Kossi Amessinou < >>> >>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>> This charter >>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>>>> is important for all but we >>> can put also the african declaration (FR >>> >>>>> >>> , >>> >>>>> EN >>> >>>>> >>> ) >>> >>>>> on the table. >>> >>>>> Thank you. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Le mar. 24 sept. 2019 à 18:56, >>> Nnenna Nwakanma < >>> >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >>> > >>> a écrit : >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think the UN High-Level >>> Panel Report on Digital Cooperation >>> should >>> >>>>>> be on  the agenda. Not just >>> feedback on the report, but anticipating >>> >>>>>> CS >>> >>>>>> engagement going forward. >>> >>>>>> Following the  Christchurch >>> call a Charter >>> >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>>>> was launched.  I have also >>> copied and posted what I think is an >>> >>>>>> important >>> >>>>>> Declaration of  key >>> governments.  Simply put, we need to >>> discuss  how >>> >>>>>> we >>> >>>>>> respond to internet >>> governance legislation and >>> regulatory  moves >>> >>>>>> across the >>> >>>>>> world. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> If all goes as planned,  I >>> will be in Berlin >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Best >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> N >>> >>>>>> ------ Forwarded Message -------- >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The following text is a joint >>> statement affirmed by these countries: >>> >>>>>> Australia, Belgium, Canada, >>> Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, >>> >>>>>> Estonia, >>> >>>>>> Finland, France, Germany, >>> Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, >>> >>>>>> Lithuania, the Netherlands, >>> New Zealand, Norway, Poland, the >>> Republic >>> >>>>>> of >>> >>>>>> Korea, Romania, Slovakia, >>> Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, >>> and the >>> >>>>>> United >>> >>>>>> States. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Begin Text: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Joint Statement on Advancing >>> Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Information technology is >>> transforming modern life, driving >>> >>>>>> innovation >>> >>>>>> and productivity, >>> facilitating the sharing of ideas, >>> of cultures, and >>> >>>>>> promoting free expression. >>> Its benefits have brought the global >>> >>>>>> community >>> >>>>>> closer together than ever >>> before in history. Even as we >>> recognize the >>> >>>>>> myriad benefits that >>> cyberspace has brought to our >>> citizens and strive >>> >>>>>> to >>> >>>>>> ensure that humanity can >>> continue to reap its benefits, a >>> challenge to >>> >>>>>> this >>> >>>>>> vision has emerged. State and >>> non-state actors are using cyberspace >>> >>>>>> increasingly as a platform >>> for irresponsible behavior from which to >>> >>>>>> target >>> >>>>>> critical infrastructure and >>> our citizens, undermine democracies and >>> >>>>>> international institutions >>> and organizations, and undercut fair >>> >>>>>> competition >>> >>>>>> in our global economy by >>> stealing ideas when they cannot >>> create them. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Over the past decade, the >>> international community has made >>> clear that >>> >>>>>> the international rules-based >>> order should guide state behavior in >>> >>>>>> cyberspace. UN member states >>> have increasingly coalesced around an >>> >>>>>> evolving >>> >>>>>> framework of responsible >>> state behavior in cyberspace >>> (framework), >>> >>>>>> which >>> >>>>>> supports the international >>> rules-based order, affirms the >>> >>>>>> applicability of >>> >>>>>> international law to >>> state-on-state behavior, adherence >>> to voluntary >>> >>>>>> norms >>> >>>>>> of responsible state behavior >>> in peacetime, and the development and >>> >>>>>> implementation of practical >>> confidence building measures to help >>> >>>>>> reduce the >>> >>>>>> risk of conflict stemming >>> from cyber incidents. All members of the >>> >>>>>> United >>> >>>>>> Nations General Assembly have >>> repeatedly affirmed this framework, >>> >>>>>> articulated in three >>> successive UN Groups of Governmental >>> Experts >>> >>>>>> reports >>> >>>>>> in 2010, 2013, and 2015. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We underscore our commitment >>> to uphold the international rules-based >>> >>>>>> order and encourage its >>> adherence, implementation, and further >>> >>>>>> development, >>> >>>>>> including at the ongoing UN >>> negotiations of the Open Ended Working >>> >>>>>> Group >>> >>>>>> and Group of Governmental >>> Experts. We support targeted >>> cybersecurity >>> >>>>>> capacity building to ensure >>> that all responsible states can >>> implement >>> >>>>>> this >>> >>>>>> framework and better protect >>> their networks from significant >>> >>>>>> disruptive, >>> >>>>>> destructive, or otherwise >>> destabilizing cyber activity. We >>> reiterate >>> >>>>>> that >>> >>>>>> human rights apply and must >>> be respected and protected by states >>> >>>>>> online, as >>> >>>>>> well as offline, including >>> when addressing cybersecurity. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> As responsible states that >>> uphold the international rules-based >>> >>>>>> order, >>> >>>>>> we recognize our role in >>> safeguarding the benefits of a free, >>> open, >>> >>>>>> and >>> >>>>>> secure cyberspace for future >>> generations. When necessary, we will >>> >>>>>> work >>> >>>>>> together on a voluntary basis >>> to hold states accountable when they >>> >>>>>> act >>> >>>>>> contrary to this framework, >>> including by taking measures that are >>> >>>>>> transparent and consistent >>> with international law. There must be >>> >>>>>> consequences for bad behavior >>> in cyberspace. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We call on all states to >>> support the evolving framework and >>> to join >>> >>>>>> with us to ensure greater >>> accountability and stability in >>> cyberspace. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> End Text >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> For further information, >>> please contact the Office of the >>> Coordinator >>> >>>>>> for Cyber Issues at >>> SCCI_Press at state.gov >>> . >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 4:59 >>> PM Sheetal Kumar >>> >>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Thanks for these inputs! >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> So far I've got that people >>> are interested in discussing the >>> >>>>>>> following topics: 1) >>> cybercrime 2) ethics 3) sustainability. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> I suggest we together a >>> small working group who has the >>> capacity to >>> >>>>>>> steer the organisation of >>> the session in an inclusive way. If >>> you're >>> >>>>>>> interested in being part of >>> that, if you could email Bruna and I >>> >>>>>>> we'll >>> >>>>>>> start a dedicated thread to >>> support the organisation of the event. >>> >>>>>>> The >>> >>>>>>> smaller group will liaise >>> with everyone once we have some initial >>> >>>>>>> ideas to >>> >>>>>>> propose on how to organise >>> the event. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Hope that's ok? >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Best >>> >>>>>>> Sheetal >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Sep 2019 at >>> 16:22, "Michael J. Oghia" < >>> >>>>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Hi Bruna, all: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for looping me in. >>> I've been hoping for some time that more >>> >>>>>>>> people throughout the IG >>> community would see the value in >>> >>>>>>>> discussing >>> >>>>>>>> climate change and >>> sustainability as it relates to our >>> work. Indeed, >>> >>>>>>>> many >>> >>>>>>>> different groups and >>> initiatives are working on it, >>> albeit across >>> >>>>>>>> sectors >>> >>>>>>>> and stakeholder groups. >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> It's a massive problem – >>> and it's not just data centers, it's >>> >>>>>>>> literally everything you >>> can think of as it relates to >>> technology. >>> >>>>>>>> While >>> >>>>>>>> Internet governance tends >>> (or at least tries) to limit itself to >>> >>>>>>>> discussions about processes >>> or what's *on* the Internet, the fact >>> >>>>>>>> is there are multiple ways >>> that the IG community could address >>> >>>>>>>> sustainability more broadly >>> (see the EuroDIG 2017 session >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>> I organised, for >>> >>>>>>>> instance). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> At the same time, IRPC is >>> really spearheading this at the >>> moment. I >>> >>>>>>>> think it's more prudent to >>> join with them in support to address how >>> >>>>>>>> climate >>> >>>>>>>> change and sustainability >>> are, at the very core, human rights >>> >>>>>>>> issues, as >>> >>>>>>>> well as to limit >>> redundancy. Instead of briefing >>> everyone on the >>> >>>>>>>> issue, for >>> >>>>>>>> example, I'd happily give a >>> webinar to anyone interested about the >>> >>>>>>>> interconnections (but I've >>> also written extensively about it). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> My suggestion is to support >>> IRPC and leave the CS pre-event to >>> >>>>>>>> strategy or another topic >>> that isn't covered at all by the IGF >>> (the >>> >>>>>>>> workshops have a rather >>> narrow focus this year, to put it >>> >>>>>>>> diplomatic >>> >>>>>>>> terms). >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>>>> -Michael >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at >>> 3:02 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>> >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com >>> > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Dear Sheetal, >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe its worth >>> considering a discussion on climate >>> change and >>> >>>>>>>>> Internet Governance to our >>> day zero meeting. This is something >>> >>>>>>>>> thats been >>> >>>>>>>>> discussed at a different >>> thread set at NCSG mailing list, but >>> there >>> >>>>>>>>> seems >>> >>>>>>>>> to be some interest to >>> facilitate a discussion on these >>> lines at >>> >>>>>>>>> the igf >>> >>>>>>>>> and even require some >>> policy outcome that would look to the >>> >>>>>>>>> matter. >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> @Michael Oghia >>> >> > and >>> @Nick Shorey Lists >>> >>>>>>>>> >> > have >>> been starting this conversation at the >>> >>>>>>>>> NSCG mailing list and I am >>> cc'ing them here! >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>>>>> Bruna >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Le dim. 15 sept. 2019 à >>> 06:38, Amali De Silva < >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> governance at lists.riseup.net >>> > >>> a écrit : >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Please include the >>> teaching of ethics in a globally >>> connected >>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>> >>>>>>>>>> … right thought for right >>> action is never out of fashion , right >>> >>>>>>>>>> planning for best action >>> is good risk management … right attitude >>> >>>>>>>>>> and >>> >>>>>>>>>> compassion  for human care …. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Amali De SIlva-Mitchell >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On ‎Friday‎, ‎September‎ >>> ‎13‎, ‎2019‎ ‎08‎:‎38‎:‎41‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PDT, >>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy Nweke >>> >> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Sheetal >>> >>>>>>>>>> This is great thought. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Although not sure of >>> attending yet, I will like to be >>> part of the >>> >>>>>>>>>> planning team. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Will like also to see >>> issues on "Stereotyping of Cyber >>> Crime and >>> >>>>>>>>>> Effects on Developing >>> Economies and Role of Civil Society." >>> >>>>>>>>>> Regards >>> >>>>>>>>>> Remmy >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019, >>> 12:57 AM Sheetal Kumar < >>> >>>>>>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm getting in touch here >>> about planning one of the civil society >>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-events to the IGF >>> session. It's called "Civil society >>> >>>>>>>>>> coordination >>> >>>>>>>>>> meeting (Global Partners >>> Digital)" in the schedule but it is *not >>> >>>>>>>>>> *a GPD event. I just >>> applied for it, that's all. It's an >>> event >>> >>>>>>>>>> open to all civil >>> society, and I would suggest that >>> members of IGC >>> >>>>>>>>>> should >>> >>>>>>>>>> be actively involved in >>> shaping its agenda.  It's been moved to >>> >>>>>>>>>> from to >>> >>>>>>>>>> 13.30 - 15.30 pm >>> following a request from the IGF >>> Secretariat. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> When a few of us met on >>> the sidelines of RightsCon earlier this >>> >>>>>>>>>> year we suggested that >>> the event could focus on sharing >>> updates on >>> >>>>>>>>>> key >>> >>>>>>>>>> global processes and >>> perhaps planning for how to input >>> into them >>> >>>>>>>>>> e.g: the >>> >>>>>>>>>> High Level Panel, the UN >>> First Committee processes on cyber and >>> >>>>>>>>>> any others. >>> >>>>>>>>>> And we could also discuss >>> any matters pertaining to the IGC. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> As such, I would be >>> grateful if you could share your >>> views on the >>> >>>>>>>>>> following >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> - What topics and/or >>> forums should we discuss at the civil >>> >>>>>>>>>> society >>> >>>>>>>>>> pre-event? >>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to >>> discuss any topics related to IGC >>> >>>>>>>>>> specifically? >>> >>>>>>>>>> - How should we discuss >>> these topics (presentations, or just >>> open >>> >>>>>>>>>> discussions) bearing in >>> mind we have only 2 hours? >>> >>>>>>>>>> - What outcome would you >>> like to see from the pre-event? >>> >>>>>>>>>> - Would you like to be >>> involved in planning the event (this >>> will >>> >>>>>>>>>> require a dedication of a >>> few hours over the next two months, I >>> >>>>>>>>>> can't say >>> >>>>>>>>>> how much) >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> It would also be great if >>> you could let me know if you're >>> >>>>>>>>>> planning >>> >>>>>>>>>> to be there. I know this >>> is dependent on funding for many of us >>> >>>>>>>>>> but if you >>> >>>>>>>>>> can give an indication >>> that would be great. >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Looking forward to >>> hearing from you! >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> Best >>> >>>>>>>>>> Sheetal >>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> >>>>>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL >>> PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>>>>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 >>> Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>> >>>>>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| >>> M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >>> >>>>>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  >>> | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>> >>>>>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 >>> CF31| >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>> >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> -- >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL >>> PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury >>> Street, London, E1 5JL >>> >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: >>> +44 (0)7739569514  | >>> >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | >>> PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>> >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> --- >>> >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Dr AMESSINOU Kossi >>> >>>>> Docteur en Sciences de >>> l'Information et de la Communication >>> >>>>> Téléphone: +229 95 19 67 02 >>> >>>>> Whatsapp: +229 99 38 98 17 >>> >>>>> Boîte Postale: 01BP7304 >>> Cotonou - Bénin >>> >>>>> Emails: kossi.amessinou at fgi.bj >>> >>> >>>>> kamessinou at gouv.bj >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>> amessinoukossi at gmail.com >>> >>> >>>>> skype: amessinou | @amessinou >>> | @bigf >>> >>>>> >>> http://www.facebook.com/amessinoukossi | >>> >>>>> >>> www.linkedin.com/pub/kossi-amessinou >>> >>> >>>>> Que Dieu vous bénisse | Dans >>> le silence, Dieu nous parle! Ma parole >>> >>>>> est >>> >>>>> mon pouvoir. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> --- >>> >>>>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> > >>> >>>>> List help: >>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Peter Micek >>> >>>> General Counsel >>> >>>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>> >>> >>> >>>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Pronouns: He/Him >>> >>>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>> >>>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>> >>>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E >>> 66B8 BE38 EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> * *Subscribe* to the Access Now >>> Express >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> , >>> >>>> our weekly newsletter on >>> digital rights >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS >>> DIGITAL >>> >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury >>> Street, London, E1 5JL >>> >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 >>> (0)7739569514  | >>> >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP >>> Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------ >>> **Arsène Tungali* >>> * >>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, >>> *Rudi international >>> *, >>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl >>> *, >>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>> GPG: 523644A0 >>> >>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>> < >>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> >>> >>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>> >>> Member. UN IGF MAG >>> >>> Member >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Peter Micek >>> General Counsel >>> Access Now | accessnow.org >>> >>> RightsCon | rightscon.org >>> >>> Pronouns: He/Him >>> Tel: +1-888-414-0100 x709 >>> PGP: 0xA5BD70B0 >>> Fingerprint: 6CFE 8E9F ED8E 66B8 BE38 >>> EA59 002C EEF5 A5BD 70B0 >>> * >>> *Subscribe* to the Access Now Express >>>  , >>> our weekly newsletter on digital rights >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> * >>> * >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, >>> E1 5JL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 >>> (0)7739569514  | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: >>> F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 >>> CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >> Verónica Ferrari >> Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC) >> www.apc.org >> veronica at apc.org >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 >> 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 >> 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> > > >> List help: >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B >> E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> * >> * >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > -- > Verónica Ferrari > Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) > www.apc.org > veronica at apc.org > > > > -- > > * > * > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Verónica Ferrari Global Policy Advocacy Coordinator Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org veronica at apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Nov 20 15:44:12 2019 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 15:44:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D03755802F6@MAILBOX04.unam.local> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> , <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D03755802F6@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: Was the sale of PIR one of those moments in which a multistakeholder process was "appropriate"? If not, why not? -mf On Tue, 19 Nov 2019, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > Ian, > ISOC is not constituted in a way that it has to develop multistakeholder approaches for all its processes; to begin with, it is not structured around stakeholder > groups.  > > What counts is its track record and ongoing participation in building up multistakeholder proceses where applicable, and its experience in helping structure each > of them according to purpose, membership, and resources; that record is pretty good. Long ago - a decade or so - we developed a WSIS-o-meter and the mechanisms > in which ISOC has taken part in design and/or operation graded way above any other. > > Let me again suggest that people look at what we now call multistakeholder processes in fields other than Internet governance for a better understanding.  > > Alejandro Pisanty > >   > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  >      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > >   > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Enviado el: lunes, 18 de noviembre de 2019 21:44 > Hasta: abscoco at gmail.com; IGCaucus > Asunto: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? > > Hi Sylvain, > > I dont think the Internet Society has any inclusive, multistakeholder or bottom up approach. I don't think it even pretends to any more. > > But perhaps things might change, we live in hope. > > For anyone who is not aware of the recent sale of the Public Interest Registry by ISOC to a for profit venture capital company, happy to provide some references. > It is being discussed in a few places, perhaps a response here might be appropriate as well (but please start a new topic!) > > Ian Peter > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sylvain Baya" > To: "IGCaucus" > Sent: 18/11/2019 11:16:42 PM > Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? > > Hi all, > Hope you are well. > ...i'm following this thread from the beginning and, i found it instructive. So thanks to y'all ! > > I want to add more variance (maybe off-topic; then i apologize), if allowed, please :-) > > ...so, question :  > What about the implementation of inclusiveness/multistakeholder, and bottom-up approach, by  > InternetSociety.ORG ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, Ian Peter a écrit : > Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. > > I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably > things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. > > Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull > out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that  people could use to suggest to their governments effective > ways of doing things. > > Ian > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Andrés Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com > Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" ; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" ; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? > > Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other > stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR  > > Andrés > > El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali () escribió: > [...] > > > > -- > Andrés Piazza > @andrespiazza > > > > -- > > -- > Best Regards !                          > baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | > Subscribe to Mailing List : > __ > #LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#DIEU‬ de ‪#Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#Amen‬!» > ‪#MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ > «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!» (#Psaumes42:2) > > > > -- A. Michael Froomkin https://law.tm 305-284-4285 ssrn: bit.ly/1XlTJLz Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law Editor, Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like (Lots), jotwell.com U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA It's warm here -------------- next part -------------- --- To unsubscribe: List help: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Nov 21 03:30:58 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 08:30:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit Message-ID: For those who want a summary of this situation, this is a thorough read https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_shambles/ It concentrates to a large degree on the ICANN issues - many other articles concentrate more on feelings of disappointment with the Internet Society for the way it has handled this, and a feeling that the non profit community has been commoditised for profit. Domain name monetisation..... Ian Peter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anita at itforchange.net Thu Nov 21 04:20:23 2019 From: anita at itforchange.net (anita) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 14:50:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] IT for Change events at IGF Berlin Message-ID: <15a9e16a-98ea-4113-5b71-cccd351e16f2@itforchange.net> Friends If you are at the IGF - Berlin, do consider dropping by at events we are hosting/co-organising and speaking at - Details as below. anita View this email in your browser Release of the Digital Justice Manifesto Pre-event organised by Just Net Coalition Monday, November 25 | 14:20 - 18:15 *Venue:* Estrel Saal C *Speakers from IT for Change:* Anita Gurumurthy, Parminder Jeet Singh See More Internet Commons Forum Pre-event co-organised by FGV, ISOC, APC and Centrum Cyfrowe Monday, November 25 | 15:40 - 18:15 *Venue: *Estrel Saal B *Speakers from IT for Change: *Anita Gurumurthy See More Formulating Policy Options for Big Data and AI Development Session organised by UNESCO Wednesday, November 27 | 9:30 - 10:30 *Venue:* Convention Hall I - D *Speakers from IT for Change: *Jai Vipra See More Inclusion and Legitimacy in Multistakeholderism at ICANN   Workshop co-organised by University of Gothenburg, The National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt (NTRA) Thursday, November 28 | 9:30 - 11:00 *Venue: *Raum IV *Speakers from IT for Change: *Nandini Chami See More Launch of GISWatch Report   Organised by Association for Progressive Communications Thursday, November 28 | 13:00 - 14:30 *Venue: *Raum IV *Speakers from IT for Change: *Nandini Chami See More Internet De-tox: A Fail-proof Regimen to End Online Sexism   Workshop co-organised by InternetLab, IT for Change, and UN OHCHR Friday, November 29 | 9:30 - 11:00 *Venue: *Raum V *Speakers from IT for Change:* Bhavna Jha, Nandini Chami See More A Tutorial on Public Policy Essentials of Data Governance   Workshop co-organised by New Economics Foundation, The IO Foundation, and IT for Change Friday, November 29 | 9:30 - 11:00 *Venue:* Raum II *Speakers from IT for Change:* Deepti Bharthur See More Twitter Facebook Website *IT for Change* # 393, 17th Main Road, 35th Cross, Jayanagar 4th 'T' Block, Bengaluru, Karnataka - 560041 -- - no title specified Anita Gurumurthy   Executive Director IT for Change In special consultative status with the United Nations ECOSOC www.ITforChange.net Phone: 00-91-80-26536890 | T: 080 2653 6890 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Thu Nov 21 08:57:54 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 06:57:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Data Protection in the BRICS Message-ID: <20191121065754.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.53da831d9e.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all, As the IGF is approaching fast, I would like to invite those who are interested in how Data Protection is evolving in the BRICS countries to our workshop on Value and Regulation of Personal Data in the BRICS, on Wednesday, November 27 from 16:40 to 18:10 https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU1q/ws-211-value-and-regulation-of-personal-data-in-the-brics The long description of the workshop is available here https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-ws-211-value-and-regulation-of-personal-data-in-the-brics For those who want to have a teaser, below you will find two CyberBRICS video clips we have just released, in the context of last week BRICS Summit, in Brasilia. CyberBRICS Talk 1 with Luca Belli, Anja Kovacs, Andrey Shcherbovich and Daniel Opperman https://portal.fgv.br/en/cyberbrics-fellows-programme-rio-janeiro-law-school-talk-10 CyberBRICS Talk 1 with Luca Belli, Min Jiang, Sagwadi Mabunda, Ian Brown https://portal.fgv.br/en/cyberbrics-fellows-programme-rio-janeiro-law-school-talk-20 And here below, a brief article providing an alternative perspective on why BRICS are developing digital sovereignty laws and regulations and why this is closely related with the recent development of data protection frameworks in the BRICS BRICS countries to build digital sovereignty https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/hri-2/brics-countries-build-digital-sovereignty/ You may also find some further readings here https://cyberbrics.info/category/publications/ Best regards Luca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 3 11:18:11 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 19:18:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Hi all, This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their inputs are being taken seriously. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Arsene 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy : > Ian, > > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> PrepCom >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s >> been >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >> indeed. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) : >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> Chipping in…. >>> >>> “in their respective roles” >>> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>> as >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>> Shope-Mafole , then >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>> someone >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>> sitting >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>> work >>> for the government?) >>> >>> >>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >>> demanding >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>> of >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>> calling >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>> the >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>> *. >>> The court threw out the two cases >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>> . >>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>> a >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: * on behalf of "Mueller, >>> Milton L" >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>> *To: *governance >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>> they >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>> of >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>> something >>> to do with local communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>> of >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>> written >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>> different >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>> could >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >>> >>> >>> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>> of >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>> things >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>> sector >>> as influential as governments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>> any >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>> integrated >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>> such >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >>> “equal >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>> sharing >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>> >>> >>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>> *To:* governance >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>> of >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>> that. >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >> > >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Arsène Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 21 10:21:50 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:21:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Nov 21, 2019, at 12:30 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > > For those who want a summary of this situation, this is a thorough read Not too thorough, it only presents one side of the issue, and it’s not the interesting side. Also it’s hyperbolic. “Potentially worth billions.” Everybody I know assumes the deal was somewhere in the $300M-$500M range, with some sort of earn-out or claw-back to mitigate the risk of recompete. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 21 10:49:07 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:49:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3335599E-DC4E-47E0-8124-6F43FFF1BAB0@pch.net> > On Nov 21, 2019, at 7:21 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > “Potentially worth billions.” Everybody I know assumes the deal was somewhere in the $300M-$500M range, with some sort of earn-out or claw-back to mitigate the risk of recompete. Hm. Ok, I’m digging further into this now, reading the last renewal with ICANN, which was, as the article points out, for ten years: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm Relevant portions: 4.1 Term. The term of this Agreement will be ten (10) years from the Effective Date (as such term may be extended pursuant to Section 4.2, the “Term”). 4.2 Renewal. This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term 4.3(g) ICANN may, upon thirty (30) calendar days’ notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement as specified in Section 7.5. 7.5 Change of Control; Assignment and Subcontracting. Except as set forth in this Section 7.5, neither party may assign any of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 7.5(b) Within thirty (30) calendar days of either such notification pursuant to Section 7.5(a), ICANN may request additional information from Registry Operator … in which case Registry Operator must supply the requested information within fifteen (15) calendar days. 7.5(c) Registry Operator agrees that ICANN’s consent to any assignment, change of control or Material Subcontracting Arrangement will also be subject to background checks on any proposed Contracting Party (and such Contracting Party’s Affiliates). 7.5(d) If ICANN fails to expressly provide or withhold its consent within thirty (30) calendar days, ICANN shall be deemed to have consented to such transaction. So, it appears that the danger of a recompete triggered by ICANN is actually fairly low, so doesn’t need to be hedged too directly. i.e. could just be insured for, rather than built into the transaction. Excuse the ignorant question, but can anyone point me at the document in which the DoC gives up their rights/responsibilities over .org competition? I’m curious whether that’s also a threat. Anyway, I’m guessing “billions” plural is still hyperbole, but based on this, the ISOC endowment might well wind up being, uh, well-endowed. Which would be an excellent thing for the Internet. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From james at cyberinvasion.net Thu Nov 21 10:52:17 2019 From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:52:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit In-Reply-To: <3335599E-DC4E-47E0-8124-6F43FFF1BAB0@pch.net> References: <3335599E-DC4E-47E0-8124-6F43FFF1BAB0@pch.net> Message-ID: I agree it wont be billions, I expect 700-950m USD, multistage payment contingent on continued operation and performance would be pretty standard terms. On 21.11.19, 15:49, "Bill Woodcock" wrote: > On Nov 21, 2019, at 7:21 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > “Potentially worth billions.” Everybody I know assumes the deal was somewhere in the $300M-$500M range, with some sort of earn-out or claw-back to mitigate the risk of recompete. Hm. Ok, I’m digging further into this now, reading the last renewal with ICANN, which was, as the article points out, for ten years: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/tlds/org/org-agmt-html-30jun19-en.htm Relevant portions: 4.1 Term. The term of this Agreement will be ten (10) years from the Effective Date (as such term may be extended pursuant to Section 4.2, the “Term”). 4.2 Renewal. This Agreement will be renewed for successive periods of ten (10) years upon the expiration of the initial Term 4.3(g) ICANN may, upon thirty (30) calendar days’ notice to Registry Operator, terminate this Agreement as specified in Section 7.5. 7.5 Change of Control; Assignment and Subcontracting. Except as set forth in this Section 7.5, neither party may assign any of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the other party, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. 7.5(b) Within thirty (30) calendar days of either such notification pursuant to Section 7.5(a), ICANN may request additional information from Registry Operator … in which case Registry Operator must supply the requested information within fifteen (15) calendar days. 7.5(c) Registry Operator agrees that ICANN’s consent to any assignment, change of control or Material Subcontracting Arrangement will also be subject to background checks on any proposed Contracting Party (and such Contracting Party’s Affiliates). 7.5(d) If ICANN fails to expressly provide or withhold its consent within thirty (30) calendar days, ICANN shall be deemed to have consented to such transaction. So, it appears that the danger of a recompete triggered by ICANN is actually fairly low, so doesn’t need to be hedged too directly. i.e. could just be insured for, rather than built into the transaction. Excuse the ignorant question, but can anyone point me at the document in which the DoC gives up their rights/responsibilities over .org competition? I’m curious whether that’s also a threat. Anyway, I’m guessing “billions” plural is still hyperbole, but based on this, the ISOC endowment might well wind up being, uh, well-endowed. Which would be an excellent thing for the Internet. -Bill From woody at pch.net Thu Nov 21 10:54:05 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:54:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit In-Reply-To: References: <3335599E-DC4E-47E0-8124-6F43FFF1BAB0@pch.net> Message-ID: <43F61FC4-30DB-478F-A9E9-4F22A2A9D6BE@pch.net> > On Nov 21, 2019, at 7:52 AM, James Gannon wrote: > > I agree it wont be billions, I expect 700-950m USD, multistage payment contingent on continued operation and performance would be pretty standard terms. Yeah, I agree, that seems like a reasonable estimate. And at an 8% return, the endowment could be expected to produce something on the order of $65M/year. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From ocl at gih.com Fri Nov 22 03:04:30 2019 From: ocl at gih.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Olivier_MJ_Cr=c3=a9pin-Leblond?=) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:04:30 +0400 Subject: [governance] Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit In-Reply-To: <43F61FC4-30DB-478F-A9E9-4F22A2A9D6BE@pch.net> References: <3335599E-DC4E-47E0-8124-6F43FFF1BAB0@pch.net> <43F61FC4-30DB-478F-A9E9-4F22A2A9D6BE@pch.net> Message-ID: <3bbf7b6c-fc3d-83ec-ba77-fc46f4dae174@gih.com> Hello all, I have no information on the value of the deal but taking into account that this is a legacy TLD, that there are also 2 other TLDs involved, .ONG and .NGO, and counting the total number of registrations in these, comparing it with Verisign's worth with its number of registrations in .COM - Verisign as an example, with 154.5 Million domains in .COM and 15.6 million domains in .NET, valued at nearly US$22Bn and PIR in 11.3 million domains in .ORG - one could conservatively say that PIR should be at least worth US$1.5 Bn. Also 8% return p/a is unachievable for an endowment fund that needs to be low risk. You'd be lucky to get 3-4% if you want to keep the risk low. Kindest regards, Olivier On 21/11/2019 19:54, Bill Woodcock wrote: > >> On Nov 21, 2019, at 7:52 AM, James Gannon wrote: >> >> I agree it wont be billions, I expect 700-950m USD, multistage payment contingent on continued operation and performance would be pretty standard terms. > Yeah, I agree, that seems like a reasonable estimate. And at an 8% return, the endowment could be expected to produce something on the order of $65M/year. > > -Bill > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Nov 22 08:04:41 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 02:04:41 +1300 Subject: [governance] Day 0 Event #53 Electricity, Community Networks and Digital Inclusion: The case of the underserved communities. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear All, 1. I would like to invite you to a *IGF 2019 Pre-Event which is a Day 0 Event #53 Electricity, Community Networks and Digital Inclusion: The case of the underserved communities.* 2. Session Event Details are available here . 3. The poster is attached and we have some great panelists from civil society and some from the IGC and confirmation of attendance of some MPs and other constituencies. 4. We are ready for Berlin and have a Day 0 event , see poster for details. We have some great panelists and look forward to a dynamic session. Access is for all! #electricity #communitynetworks #digitalinclusion #innovation #underservedcommunities #IGF2019 #ICT4D #SDGs *Convenors:* Wisdom Donkor (Ghana) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Fiji) *Moderators:* Credo Global: Rebecca Crosbie and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro *Online Moderator: Charlse Assisi, *Free Lance Journalist, Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation *Rapporteur:* Hfaiedh Ines, (Tunisia) and Edinam Lily Botsyoe (Ghana) *Panel:* 1. *Fuatai Gisa Purcell *– Acting Secretary General, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation. 2. *Amelia Kamanalagi Muriel* - Pasifika Nexus Think Tank (*France*) 3. *Emani Lui *- Founder of MakaNet an Internet Service Provider (*New Zealand*) 4. *Charles Nolan* - Former Vice President Qatar Airways and Chief Executive Officer of Focus East, a Cybersecurity and Technology company ( *Qatar*) 5. *Robin Atalla* – Chief Executive Officer, Hiding Place Foundation ( *Egypt*) 6. *Zeina Bouharb* – Head of International Cooperation, OGERO Telecom ( *Lebanon*) 7. *June Parris* – Entrepreneur and Health Specialist (*Barbados*) 8. *Stephen Mawutor Donkor*, Director Projects and Technical, Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation, (*Ghana*) 9. *Mamadou Lou* - Head of Information Department, La Banque Agricole ( *Senegal*) 10. *Imran Ahmed Shah*, Founder, President IGF Pakistan, UISoc, Urdu Internet Council. -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IMG-20191122-WA0010.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 266407 bytes Desc: not available URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Fri Nov 22 09:52:34 2019 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 07:52:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] 5G or Community Networks or both? Message-ID: <20191122075234.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.54d6ffb1d1.mailapi@email07.europe.godaddy.com> Dear all, As the IGF is approaching fast, I would like to invite you to two sessions exploring two rather different visions of how Internet access is evolving: 5G, IoT and Zero Rating Challenges for Net Neutrality / DC on Network Neutrality The session will explore the impact that evolutions in connectivity such 5G technology, IoT and Zero Rating models are having on democracies and economies. The #ZeroRating website (available at www.zerorating.info) will also be presented. Tuesday November 26, 2019 11:30 - 13:00. https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU1J/dc-on-network-neutrality-dcnn Community Networks: Policy and Regulations / DC on Community Connectivity (DC3) The session will explore policies and regulations facilitating Community Networks. During this session will be launched the book Building Community Networks Policies: A Collaborative Governance towards Enabling Frameworks. (free copies will be distributed at the session) Thursday November 28, 2019 15:00 - 16:30. https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU6O/dc-on-community-connectivity-dc3 Both sessions will be opened by Edison Lanza, Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Organization of American States, and will feature several regulators amongst other stakeholders. Best regards Luca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.internet-governance.fgv.br @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Nov 22 12:58:39 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 12:58:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Acronyms Glossary 3.0 Message-ID: Just in time for the forthcoming IGF, the Diplo Foundation in partnership with the Internet Society and the Geneva Internet Platform have published version 3.0 of the IG Acronyms Glossary https://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/IG_Acronym_glossary_2019.pdf -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Nov 22 16:45:50 2019 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2019 16:45:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC at IGF 2019 - Priorities, activities and party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <708015ec-82af-d2e9-40a1-44722cc33ef0@apc.org> Dear all, Please find below the invitation to APC party at the IGF 2019.  Let me also take the opportunity to share with you our priorities for the IGF and an overview of our activities, in the case they are of your interest. https://www.apc.org/en/pubs/apc-priorities-14th-internet-governance-forum https://www.apc.org/en/news/apc-igf-2019-schedule-events In particular, I would like to invite you all to the Discotech, a peer-learning event about how to use the potential of ICTs in strategies to mitigate and adapt to the climate and environmental crisis; and to the launching of the 2019 edition of the Global Information Society Watch with a focus on  “Artificial intelligence: Human rights, social justice and development”. https://www.apc.org/en/node/35783/ https://www.apc.org/en/node/35792/ We would be delighted to have you with us! Best regards, Valeria ============== Hello dear everyone, The Association for Progressive Communications is delighted to invite you to its party happening in Berlin, Germany, on the evening of 28 November, from 20:00 hs until midnight at Loftus Hall, Maybachufer 48 / Ecke Pannierstr. Berlin, Germany. Join us for good music, conversations and dancing. Drinks can be purchased individually from the bar. Please confirm your attendance here: https://crm.apc.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=43 Recommended contribution of 10 EUR to cover the cost of food and the DJ. See you there! When: November 28th, 2018 20:00 hs  Location: Maybachufer 48 Berlin, BE 12045 Germany From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 23 11:22:19 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:22:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Governance issue : InternetSociety.ORG is about to sell the PIR to a Private Company Message-ID: {*please i apologize for the long email, i'm not an English native :'-(*} Hi all, Since the last week, we observe a real (Internet) 'governance issue' at InternetSociety.ORG ; particularly the lack of inclusiveness in decision-making processes ; partly due to a lack of an appropriate 'governance' structure which would have been a foundation for real transparency, openness, bottom-up and multi-stakeholder approaches... As said here [1] by Ian, InternetSociety.ORG is more than a top-down organization (and they even claim it as a justification), clearly separated (in aspirations/willingness) to their constituencies (Global Members, Chapters, SIGs –Special Interest Groups– and perhaps also Structures like : PIR (Public Interest Registry), IETF, IAB...) What a bad surprise to someones ! even those who have already read its Bylaws [2] :-/ ...of course, one could freely say that : what count is its ability/efficacy to organize the multistakeholderism outside. In other words, it is just fine to preach the contrary of your internal practices :'-( Fortunately, see a short reply here [3]. Now that InternetSociety.ORG want to conclude [4] a 'Privatized' 'Public Interest' transaction, what could this IGCaucus do ? What is the real meaning, of this *centralized* decision, to the Future of Internet (FotI) [5] ? I remember, back to february 2017, when the IGC wrote and sent an open letter [6] to InternetSociety.ORG about one of its country Chapter, whose president took a position (in this same mailing list: please bring back the archives!) in clear opposition to InternetSociety.ORG's Vision : "Internet is for Everyone !" BTW, today they actually act as if Internet is only for commercial's (for-profit) Orgs, while trying to sell the PIR (a not-for-profit org, dedicated to manage the registration of *non-commercial* domain names such as : non-commercial.org, not-for-profit.org, non-commercial.ong or no-commerce.ngo.) to Ethos Capital [7], a for-profit company. So, IGC has done [6] it for a single chapter's (President) behavioral drifts, why not also do the same (or more) for the InternetSociety.ORG's ones ? We should understand that IGCaucus.ORG (the domain name, of course :-)) will go under the controle of a commercial company which will be allowed to increase the price of the domain names, under its responsibility, simply to satisfy a legitimate right to grow its business. Perhaps, the IGC could also reconsider its approach of re-actions when|where there is a clear Internet's Governance concern ? Look, now that at least (remember, the PIR is a 'public' Internet service ; so the view of the .ORG's registrants community count [8]) the InternetSociety.ORG's chapters are not included in decision making (even the ChAC — Chapter Advisory Council — has been neglected), what can IGC do ? Maybe, it's time to commence to more actively and practically support those who are effectively abused in Internet governance practices... In the case of these chapters (and registrants), can the IGC consider to : •— • Write and publish an open letter, addressed to InternetSociety.ORG BoT|CEO, to raise the Internet governance's issues in this situation. The ICA has already wrote a well structured open letter [9] to ICANN's BoD. A representative set of the community of .ORG's registrants|users have started an interesting initiative [10] ; the IGC can join. • Practically help the chapters to organize themselves in opposing the sell of the PIR or in proposing an appropriate governance structure to InternetSociety.ORG, where its chapters would be more implicated in decision-making processes. • Additionally, IGC could practically help the .ORG's Registrants community to organize themselves (perhaps too late [10]) in opposing the sell of the PIR to a for-profit company. • Follow-up and communicate widely... •— Any thoughts ? __ [1]: [2]: < https://www.internetsociety.org/about-internet-society/governance-policies/by-laws/ > [3]: [4]: < https://www.internetsociety.org/news/press-releases/2019/ethos-capital-to-acquire-public-interest-registry-from-the-internet-society/ > [5]: — [6]: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pQjEQ5UtR4D7f0HYeJsK0upPKnJTEyWULk-fUSajTd8/ > [7]: [8]: See criterion 6, community|registrants Level of Support for the proposal — ”Reassignment of .org Top-Level Domain: Criteria for Assessing Proposals“ (20020520) [9]: ICA's Open Letter < http://www.circleid.com/pdf/ICA_Letter_to_ICANN_Board_201911115.pdf> [10]: Open Initiative from 27 NGOs+3636 signatories ...of course, you may have a different perspective :-) Thanks. Shalom, --sb. -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 3 18:44:23 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9s?= Piazza (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2019 20:44:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR Andrés El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (< governance at lists.riseup.net>) escribió: > Hi all, > > This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. > > In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process > but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and > send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even > possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an > input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. > > Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together > last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion > at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how > we did this: > https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ > > But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken > more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby > legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit > more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their > inputs are being taken seriously. > > Hope this is helpful. > > Regards, > Arsene > > 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy > : > > Ian, > > > > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to > > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a > good > > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far > more > > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general > National > > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems > > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved > over > > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon > > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do > to > > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the > > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? > > > > Sivasubramanian M > > > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired > >> PrepCom > >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South > >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. > >> > >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, > say > >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t > want > >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they > >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s > >> been > >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem > >> indeed. > >> > >> Izumi > >> > >> > >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) : > >> > >>> Hi all. > >>> > >>> Chipping in…. > >>> > >>> “in their respective roles” > >>> > >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in > >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From > one > >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised > >>> as > >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. > >>> > >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could > >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues > >>> > >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to > >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate > >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in > >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora > but > >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past > >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. > >>> > >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have > >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the > private > >>> sector in internet related policy development, > >>> > >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate > >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall > >>> Shope-Mafole , then > >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society > and > >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which > >>> someone > >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said > >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep > >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government > >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger > >>> sitting > >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you > >>> work > >>> for the government?) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model > >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters > >>> demanding > >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter > >>> of > >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed > >>> > https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy > >>> calling > >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen > of > >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did > >>> the > >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in > >>> * > https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case > >>> < > https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case > >*. > >>> The court threw out the two cases > >>> > https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case > >>> . > >>> > >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed > and > >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had > >>> a > >>> satisfying lunch meeting. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Ang Peng Hwa > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From: * on behalf of "Mueller, > >>> Milton L" > >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM > >>> *To: *governance > >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > >>> development at a national level? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian, David, Tamir: > >>> > >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as > >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet > >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, > >>> they > >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial > >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for > >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private > >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role > >>> of > >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had > >>> something > >>> to do with local communities. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted > >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true > >>> of > >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance > >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say > in > >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder > >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document > >>> written > >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had > >>> different > >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders > >>> could > >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never > >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role > >>> of > >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the > WSIS > >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in > >>> things > >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private > >>> sector > >>> as influential as governments. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is > >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance > does > >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial > >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on > >>> any > >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully > >>> integrated > >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de > >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system > >>> such > >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would > threaten > >>> the global compatibility of the internet. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in > >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for > >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. > Multistakeholder > >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or > >>> “equal > >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses > the > >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking > >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national > >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less > >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of > >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there > are > >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power > >>> sharing > >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the > >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is > >>> because there is no global sovereign. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized > >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < > >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * > >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu > >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM > >>> *To:* governance > >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > >>> development at a national level? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> How about "in their respective roles"? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> David > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have > >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the > private > >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps > >>> of > >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years > ago > >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed > >>> that. > >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian > >>> > >>> --- > >>> To unsubscribe: >>> > > >>> List help: > >>> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > >>> > >> -- > >> >> Izumi Aizu << > >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > >> Japan > >> www.anr.org > >> --- > >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: > >> > > > > > -- > ------------------------ > **Arsène Tungali* * > Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international > *, > CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, > Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) > GPG: 523644A0 > > 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow > < > > http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > > > > (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member > Member. UN IGF MAG > Member > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Andrés Piazza* @andrespiazza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 23 11:39:57 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 17:39:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Hi all, Le mardi 19 novembre 2019, Ian Peter a écrit : > Hi Sylvain, > > I dont think the Internet Society has any inclusive, multistakeholder or > bottom up approach. I don't think it even pretends to any more. > ...what a pity ! > But perhaps things might change, we live in hope. > ...Please, Ian, how can we act to influence that *expected* change ? > For anyone who is not aware of the recent sale of the Public Interest > Registry by ISOC to a for profit venture capital company, happy to provide > some references. It is being discussed in a few places, perhaps a response > here might be appropriate as well (but please start a new topic!) > ...well, aggreed, then started < https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/governance/2019-11/msg00068.html>. Thanks. Shalom, --sb. Ian Peter > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Sylvain Baya" > To: "IGCaucus" > Sent: 18/11/2019 11:16:42 PM > Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy > development at a national level? > > Hi all, > > Hope you are well. > ...i'm following this thread from the beginning and, i found it > instructive. So thanks to y'all ! > > I want to add more variance (*maybe off-topic; then i apologize*), if > allowed, please :-) > > ...so, question : > What about the implementation of inclusiveness/multistakeholder, *and > bottom-up approach, *by > InternetSociety.ORG ? > > Thanks. > > Shalom, > --sb. > > Le lundi 4 novembre 2019, Ian Peter a écrit : > >> Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. >> >> I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in >> that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where >> presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the >> global dimension where there was a presumed problem. >> >> Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a >> national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to >> pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society >> involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments >> effective ways of doing things. >> >> Ian >> >> ------ Original Message ------ >> From: "Andrés Piazza" >> To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com >> Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" ; "Ang Peng Hwa >> (Prof)" ; "CWCS (IGC)" >> Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >> development at a national level? >> >> Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still >> wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders >> and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR >> >> Andrés >> >> El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (< >> governance at lists.riseup.net>) escribió: >> >>> [...] >> >> >> >> -- >> *Andrés Piazza* >> @andrespiazza >> >> > [...] > > -- -- Best Regards ! baya.sylvain [AT cmNOG DOT cm] | | < https://survey.cmnog.cm> Subscribe to Mailing List : __ #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|‪#‎Romains15‬:33«*Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!*» ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬ «*Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire après TOI, ô DIEU!*» (#Psaumes42:2) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Sat Nov 23 11:47:15 2019 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 08:47:15 -0800 Subject: [governance] Governance issue : InternetSociety.ORG is about to sell the PIR to a Private Company In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6B99869B-2CFB-455E-91AA-BF2D1054A136@pch.net> > On Nov 23, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Since the last week, we observe a real (Internet) 'governance issue' at > InternetSociety.ORG ; particularly the lack of inclusiveness in decision-making > processes ; partly due to a lack of an appropriate 'governance' structure which > would have been a foundation for real transparency, openness, bottom-up and > multi-stakeholder approaches... A few points and questions: - “It takes two to tango.” Putting aside the question of whether this deal _should_ have been done, one cannot do it “transparently” if there are no partners who are willing to also conduct the transaction out in the public view. And there’s frankly no reason for them to do so. So I assert that, _if_ the transaction was to have been done, it’s unlikely that it _could_ have been done “transparently,” for lack of a buyer who would wish to conduct their business so publicly. Remember that the non-profit side is only one side, and both sides have to be accommodated for a deal to be reached. - Aside from whatever dissatisfaction anyone might hold at not having been a part of something that happened, what real harm do you believe has, or will, occur? Who are the harmed parties, and how much are they harmed? Are you concerned that, despite continuing to be under ICANN oversight and the ongoing requirement (and public commitment) to provide a public benefit, that prices will be raised dramatically? How much would be dramatic? Two dollars a year? Five dollars a year? A thousand dollars a year? How much of an increase would be required to have a material effect on any registrant, and how likely do you believe that to occur? - Do you recognize a benefit in ISOC being funded though an independent endowment, and no longer being beholden to other parties and other interests? To me, this is a huge, huge benefit to the Internet as a whole. An ISOC unencumbered by USG policy demands and gTLD politics is an ISOC which can serve the Internet neutrally and objectively. That would be an excellent outcome, and one which could benefit everyone significantly, while spreading a miniscule cost across ten million organizations. Do you believe that ISOC will not do good works, if deconflicted? Do you not see that as worth a few dollars a year per organization? I don’t mean to phrase those questions in a combatitive way; I’m honestly very puzzled by negative reactions to this announcement, and don’t understand the rationale by which people arrive at the judgements that are being bandied about. I’d love to have some insight into how you arrive at your position. -Bill -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sat Nov 23 12:40:08 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sylvain BAYA (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:40:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Governance issue : InternetSociety.ORG is about to sell the PIR to a Private Company In-Reply-To: <6B99869B-2CFB-455E-91AA-BF2D1054A136@pch.net> References: <6B99869B-2CFB-455E-91AA-BF2D1054A136@pch.net> Message-ID: <8124d73a-fa4d-f383-1746-0667feaaa29e@gmail.com> Hi all, Please see my answers below (inline)... Le 23/11/2019 à 17:47, Bill Woodcock a écrit : >> On Nov 23, 2019, at 8:22 AM, Sylvain Baya (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> Since the last week, we observe a real (Internet) 'governance issue' at >> InternetSociety.ORG ; particularly the lack of inclusiveness in decision-making >> processes ; partly due to a lack of an appropriate 'governance' structure which >> would have been a foundation for real transparency, openness, bottom-up and >> multi-stakeholder approaches... > A few points and questions: > > - “It takes two to tango.” Putting aside the question of whether this deal _should_ have been done, one cannot do it “transparently” if there are no partners who are willing to also conduct the transaction out in the public view. And there’s frankly no reason for them to do so. So I assert that, _if_ the transaction was to have been done, it’s unlikely that it _could_ have been done “transparently,” for lack of a buyer who would wish to conduct their business so publicly. Remember that the non-profit side is only one side, and both sides have to be accommodated for a deal to be reached. Dear Bill, Thanks for have shared your thoughts. ...in this one it seems as the for-profit side won ? I was thinking that my point was clear enough; IMHO, it is not fair to treat such a deal without a consultation within the other stakeholders. > - Aside from whatever dissatisfaction anyone might hold at not having been a part of something that happened, what real harm do you believe has, or will, occur? Who are the harmed parties, and how much are they harmed? Are you concerned that, despite continuing to be under ICANN oversight and the ongoing requirement (and public commitment) to provide a public benefit, that prices will be raised dramatically? How much would be dramatic? Two dollars a year? Five dollars a year? A thousand dollars a year? How much of an increase would be required to have a material effect on any registrant, and how likely do you believe that to occur? Perhaps you should try to convince all the NGOs from this initiative ? > - Do you recognize a benefit in ISOC being funded though an independent endowment, and no longer being beholden to other parties and other interests? To me, this is a huge, huge benefit to the Internet as a whole. An ISOC unencumbered by USG policy demands and gTLD politics is an ISOC which can serve the Internet neutrally and objectively. That would be an excellent outcome, and one which could benefit everyone significantly, while spreading a miniscule cost across ten million organizations. Do you believe that ISOC will not do good works, if deconflicted? Do you not see that as worth a few dollars a year per organization? ...my point is not about saving InternetSociety.ORG, that's yours, but keeping the Internet stable, instead of transforming it as a commercial-only (/at least for the domain names part/) place :'-/ > I don’t mean to phrase those questions in a combatitive way; I’m honestly very puzzled by negative reactions to this announcement, and don’t understand the rationale by which people arrive at the judgements that are being bandied about. I’d love to have some insight into how you arrive at your position. Bill your point is perfectly acceptable, and clear, exactly like the positions of others on this topic. I don't see your questions as negative brother :-) Hope to have clarified something. Thanks. Shalom, --sb. > > -Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From k.mosene at hans-bredow-institut.de Sat Nov 23 15:44:22 2019 From: k.mosene at hans-bredow-institut.de (Katharina Mosene) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 21:44:22 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Event & Publication Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions. In-Reply-To: <1758052574.15387.1574536387973@groupware.hans-bredow-institut.de> References: <1758052574.15387.1574536387973@groupware.hans-bredow-institut.de> Message-ID: <1942920529.15406.1574541862289@groupware.hans-bredow-institut.de> Dear All, as the IGF is approaching I would like to draw your attention to an event and a publication: Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions. The HIIG is organising an IGF side event on critical voices, visions and vector for internet governance. In partnership with the Leibniz-Institute for Media Research | Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI), the Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance (DC-Gender), netzforma*, the Gunda-Werner-Institute and the Centre for Internet and Human Rights we developed a short catalog of visions on an internet without discrimination. You can find the blog entry here: https://www.hiig.de/en/critical-voices-visions-and-vectors-for-internet-governance/ Find the whole publication here: https://www.hiig.de/en/publication/many-worlds-many-nets-many-visions/ Katharina Mosene and Matthias C. Kettemann (eds.), Many Words. Many Nets. Many Visions. Critical Voices, Visions, and Vectors for Internet Governance. Berlin: Alexander von Humboldt-Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft (HIIG), 2019, ISBN (print): 978-3-9820242-5-7, ISBN (eBook): 978-3-9820242-6-4 Many Worlds. Many Nets. Many Visions. Critical Voices, Visions and Vectors for Internet Governance 26 November | 6:30 pm | doors open: 6 pm HIIG | Französische Straße 9, 10117 Berlin https://www.hiig.de/en/events/many-worlds-many-nets-many-visions/ You are warmly invited! Best, Katharina Mosene & Matthias C. Kettemann _____________________________________________________ Katharina Mosene, M. A. Forschungs- und Veranstaltungskooperationen Leibniz-Institut für Medienforschung │ Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI) Rothenbaumchaussee 36 20148 Hamburg 040 450 217 - 57 http://www.leibniz-hbi.de/ http://www.leibniz-hbi.de/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 24 00:22:33 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seth Johnson (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 00:22:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] All Concerned (Re: Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit) Message-ID: If you are concerned about the sale of PIR by our From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 24 00:41:26 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seth Johnson (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 00:41:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] All Concerned (Re: Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you are concerned about the sale of PIR by our standardbearers at ISOC, signs are strong they will now move swiftly. Discussion that approached an opening up of discussion with the broader community about the implications of the sale and how else they might serve the concern of diversifying their revenue sources, has apparently resulted in a Board meeting to issue a decision quickly rather than giving us information regarding how the issue had been raised with the community thus far as they had seemed to promise. This was how they responded to a request from Ian Peter to that effect. If you are among those concerned or you signed the Savedotorg.org statement, saying something constructive right now to the Internet Society will be in order. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Barnes via InternetPolicy Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:40:34 +0800 Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Internet Policy] Private equity firm buys PIRfrom ISOC To: Ian Peter Cc: ISOC Internet Policy , joly at punkcast.com Hi Ian, On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ian Peter via InternetPolicy < internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > Vint, > > Alternative approaches were available and may have been more prudent. > These would include > > 1. Before deciding on a particular offer, determining whether the sale was > in the best interests of the organisation and its stakeholders. Given that > at least some reports suggest that the concept of such a sale was discussed > informally well in advance of the actual offer, either within ISOC or with > PIR staff, there would have been opportunities for this. > The board has made such a determination, after intensive deliberation. I don't think we could have reasonably approved the transaction otherwise. Unfortunately, some of the information on which that determination was based is not yet public. > 2. Prudent financial management would have suggested that ISOC discuss > years ago as a policy issue whether reliance on a single major income > source was fiscally prudent. This would have lead to a general policy > discussion as to whether a sale of PIR - or perhaps even a dilution of > shareholding - might be a useful step. > Diversification of revenue has indeed been a topic of board discussion for at least a decade. As others on this list have pointed out, selling PIR is a form of diversification -- instead of having a single asset in a single market, we can now have a diversified portfolio. > 3. When an offer was received, enquiring either discretely or by public > comment whether other contenders for such a purchase might be interested > would be a more normal process. A competitive bidding process usually > results in a higher price and only rarely deters potential buyers (although > they are likely to claim that their offer will be withdrawn to try and > circumvent such processes) > In the minutes that the board approved today, you will find that the board did in fact consider multiple offers. I hope this helps clarify things. --Richard > > So I don't think it is fair to say that the circumstances demanded a rapid > secretive response. But certainly ISOC acted that way, and probably really > believed it was the best response. > > But there were alternatives. > > Ian Peter From governance at lists.riseup.net Sun Nov 24 00:49:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Seth Johnson (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 00:49:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] All Concerned (Re: Public Interest Registry sale by ISOC - .org management sold for profit) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/24/19, Seth Johnson wrote: > If you are concerned about the sale of PIR by our standardbearers at > ISOC, signs are strong they will now move swiftly. Discussion that > approached an opening up of discussion with the broader community > about the implications of the sale and how else they might serve the > concern of diversifying their revenue sources, has apparently resulted > in a Board meeting to issue a decision quickly rather than giving us > information regarding how the issue had been raised with the community > thus far as they had seemed to promise. This was how they responded > to a request from Ian Peter to that effect. > > If you are among those concerned or you signed the Savedotorg.org > statement, saying something constructive right now to the Internet > Society will be in order. Also for reference: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Richard Barnes via InternetPolicy Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 07:05:41 +0800 Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Internet Policy] Private equity firm buys PIRfrom ISOC To: Ian Peter Cc: ISOC Internet Policy , joly at punkcast.com On Sun, Nov 24, 2019 at 04:49 Ian Peter wrote: > Thanks Richard. Do you know when the Board minutes you refer to might be > available? The last ones on the site appear to be from July. > I don’t know. I will check with the secretary and staff and follow up. Can you also point to any time in the past when it might have been > communicated to Chapters or members that the BoT considered diversification > of income sources to be an important goal, and that this could only be > achieved by divesting interests in PIR? > If you look back through the minutes of the board, there are several times this issue has come up through the years. (Unfortunately, I’m writing this from my phone, or I would provide links) I’m not sure how fully past boards have engaged the community. Certainly it’s something we could discuss doing more in the future if there’s interest, because the problem isn’t going away, just changing. I don’t think it’s fair to say that this transaction is the *only* way to achieve the objective of diversification. For example, ISOC has made some efforts recently to strengthen the Organizational Members program. But this transaction is a way to achieve a lot of diversification quite quickly, and in a way that (in my estimation at least) is compatible with the mission of the Society. —Richard > > Ian Peter > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > From: "Richard Barnes" > To: "Ian Peter" > Cc: "vinton cerf" ; "Olévié Kouami" < > olivierkouami at gmail.com>; "ISOC Internet Policy" < > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>; joly at punkcast.com > Sent: 23/11/2019 9:40:34 PM > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Internet Policy] Private equity firm buys > PIRfrom ISOC > > Hi Ian, > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ian Peter via InternetPolicy < > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Vint, >> >> Alternative approaches were available and may have been more prudent. >> These would include > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Richard Barnes via InternetPolicy > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2019 18:40:34 +0800 > Subject: Re: [Internet Policy] Internet Policy] Private equity firm > buys PIRfrom ISOC > To: Ian Peter > Cc: ISOC Internet Policy , > joly at punkcast.com > > Hi Ian, > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 5:17 PM Ian Peter via InternetPolicy < > internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org> wrote: > >> Vint, >> >> Alternative approaches were available and may have been more prudent. >> These would include >> >> 1. Before deciding on a particular offer, determining whether the sale >> was >> in the best interests of the organisation and its stakeholders. Given >> that >> at least some reports suggest that the concept of such a sale was >> discussed >> informally well in advance of the actual offer, either within ISOC or >> with >> PIR staff, there would have been opportunities for this. >> > > The board has made such a determination, after intensive deliberation. I > don't think we could have reasonably approved the transaction otherwise. > Unfortunately, some of the information on which that determination was > based is not yet public. > > >> 2. Prudent financial management would have suggested that ISOC discuss >> years ago as a policy issue whether reliance on a single major income >> source was fiscally prudent. This would have lead to a general policy >> discussion as to whether a sale of PIR - or perhaps even a dilution of >> shareholding - might be a useful step. >> > > Diversification of revenue has indeed been a topic of board discussion for > at least a decade. As others on this list have pointed out, selling PIR is > a form of diversification -- instead of having a single asset in a single > market, we can now have a diversified portfolio. > > >> 3. When an offer was received, enquiring either discretely or by public >> comment whether other contenders for such a purchase might be interested >> would be a more normal process. A competitive bidding process usually >> results in a higher price and only rarely deters potential buyers >> (although >> they are likely to claim that their offer will be withdrawn to try and >> circumvent such processes) >> > > In the minutes that the board approved today, you will find that the board > did in fact consider multiple offers. > > I hope this helps clarify things. > > --Richard > > >> >> So I don't think it is fair to say that the circumstances demanded a >> rapid >> secretive response. But certainly ISOC acted that way, and probably >> really >> believed it was the best response. >> >> But there were alternatives. >> >> Ian Peter > From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 25 01:10:30 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:40:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Release of Digital Justice Manifesto -- At IGF venue today Message-ID: <5b8e93c6-25ab-cdc8-c5ce-a6093b42bf63@itforchange.net> We request all those in Berlin for the IGF to join us for the release of Digital Justice Manifesto as per the following program, parminder * * *Just Net Coalition * invites you to the release of *The Digital Justice Manifesto* *A Call to Own Our Digital Future* *25th November, 2.20 PM - 4.30 PM * *Estrel Saal C, Estrel Congress Centre, Berlin* *(Venue for the Internet Governance Forum)*   *Manifesto Release by * *Elvan Korkmaz* (Member of the German Parliament - Bundestag)   Followed by a panel discussion *Elvan Korkmaz* *Anita Gurumurthy (IT for Change)* *Julia Reda (Former Member of the European Parliament)* *Fabien Anthony (AfricaGen)* *Moderated by Sarah Ganter (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung)*   Followed by Q and A session with Just Net Coalition members *Norbert Bollow, Sally Burch, Richard Hill, Parminder Jeet Singh*   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 25 05:22:38 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:22:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] [At-Large] Day 0 Event #53 Electricity, Community Networks and Digital Inclusion: The case of the underserved communities. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I have attended last week the ISOC Community Networks Summit in Tbilisi, I have posted transcripts of this on the livestream. AI with some corrections but still a little rough. https://livestream.com/internetsociety/cnsummit2019 joly On Sat, Nov 23, 2019 at 10:41 AM Roberto Gaetano < roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com> wrote: > I will attend in person. > FYI, I have attended last week the ISOC Community Networks Summit in > Tbilisi, where some projects aiming at connecting underserved communities > have been presented and discussed. > Adding Marco Zennaro and Ermanno Pietrosemoli tf the ICTP in copy. They > are the local hosts of EuroDIG 2020 and active themselves in connectivity > projects in underserved regions. > Cheers, > Roberto > > On 23.11.2019, at 16:04, Maureen Hilyard > wrote: > > Hi Sala > > Hi Sala > > I too will certainly join in remotely with Glenn and Carlton - especially > with Emani, Gisa and yourself participating. > Just got to make sure I get up at the right time in the early hours of the > morning (LOL) > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 3:03 AM Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> >> 1. I would like to invite you to a *IGF 2019 Pre-Event which is a Day >> 0 Event #53 Electricity, Community Networks and Digital Inclusion: The >> case of the underserved communities.* >> 2. Session Event Details are available here >> >> . >> 3. The poster is attached and we have some great panelists from civil >> society and some from the IGC and confirmation of attendance of some MPs >> and other constituencies. >> 4. We are ready for Berlin and have a Day 0 event , see poster for >> details. We have some great panelists and look forward to a dynamic >> session. Access is for all! #electricity #communitynetworks >> #digitalinclusion #innovation #underservedcommunities #IGF2019 #ICT4D #SDGs >> >> >> *Convenors:* Wisdom Donkor (Ghana) and Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro (Fiji) >> >> *Moderators:* Credo Global: Rebecca Crosbie and Salanieta >> Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> *Online Moderator: Charlse Assisi, *Free Lance Journalist, Africa Open >> Data and Internet Research Foundation >> >> *Rapporteur:* Hfaiedh Ines, (Tunisia) and Edinam Lily Botsyoe (Ghana) >> >> *Panel:* >> >> 1. *Fuatai Gisa Purcell *– Acting Secretary General, Commonwealth >> Telecommunications Organisation. >> 2. *Amelia Kamanalagi Muriel* - Pasifika Nexus Think Tank (*France*) >> 3. *Emani Lui *- Founder of MakaNet an Internet Service Provider (*New >> Zealand*) >> 4. *Charles Nolan* - Former Vice President Qatar Airways and Chief >> Executive Officer of Focus East, a Cybersecurity and Technology company ( >> *Qatar*) >> 5. *Robin Atalla* – Chief Executive Officer, Hiding Place Foundation ( >> *Egypt*) >> 6. *Zeina Bouharb* – Head of International Cooperation, OGERO Telecom >> (*Lebanon*) >> 7. *June Parris* – Entrepreneur and Health Specialist (*Barbados*) >> 8. *Stephen Mawutor Donkor*, Director Projects and Technical, Africa >> Open Data and Internet Research Foundation, (*Ghana*) >> 9. *Mamadou Lou* - Head of Information Department, La Banque Agricole >> (*Senegal*) >> 10. *Imran Ahmed Shah*, Founder, President IGF Pakistan, UISoc, Urdu >> Internet Council. >> >> -- >> >> *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T * >> >> *P. O. Box 17862 * >> >> *Suva * >> >> >> *Republic of Fiji * >> >> *Cell: +679 7656770; * >> >> *Home: +679 3362003 * >> *Twitter: @SalanietaT* >> >> >> >> >> *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the >> greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> _______________________________________________ >> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your >> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance >> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and >> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You >> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or >> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or >> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your > personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance > with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and > the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can > visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or > configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or > disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Nov 25 06:04:37 2019 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 06:04:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] 2019 IGF Message-ID: The 2019 Internet Governance Forum is under way in Berlin Schedule: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019 Video: https://www.youtube.com/user/igf Zoom: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-online-participation RTT: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-transcriptions-access Twitter: #IGF2019 http://bit.ly/34oRVes Berlin is UTC+1 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Nov 3 19:12:53 2019 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 00:12:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> Message-ID: Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Andrés Piazza" To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" ; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" ; "CWCS (IGC)" Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still >wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other >stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative >BFA.AR > >Andrés > >El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali >() escribió: >>Hi all, >> >>This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. >> >>In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process >>but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and >>send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even >>possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an >>input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. >> >>Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together >>last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion >>at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how >>we did this: >>https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ >> >>But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken >>more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby >>legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit >>more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their >>inputs are being taken seriously. >> >>Hope this is helpful. >> >>Regards, >>Arsene >> >>2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >>: >> > Ian, >> > >> > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather >>slow to >> > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of >>a good >> > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and >>far more >> > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general >>National >> > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems >> > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left >>unresolved over >> > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress >>upon >> > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the >>Community do to >> > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the >> > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? >> > >> > Sivasubramanian M >> > >> > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU wrote: >> > >> >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> >> PrepCom >> >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when >>South >> >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold >>reform, say >> >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there >>don’t want >> >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake >>they >> >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. >>It’s >> >> been >> >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging >>problem >> >> indeed. >> >> >> >> Izumi >> >> >> >> >> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) : >> >> >> >>> Hi all. >> >>> >> >>> Chipping in…. >> >>> >> >>> “in their respective roles” >> >>> >> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting >>“in >> >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. >>From one >> >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being >>recognised >> >>> as >> >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >> >>> >> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>could >> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >> >>> >> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any >>attempt to >> >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF >>mandate >> >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >> >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice >>fora but >> >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >> >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >> >>> >> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might >>have >> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the >>private >> >>> sector in internet related policy development, >> >>> >> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >> >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by >>Lyndall >> >>> Shope-Mafole , then >> >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information >>Society and >> >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >> >>> someone >> >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She >>said >> >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must >>keep >> >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore >>Government >> >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the >>passenger >> >>> sitting >> >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: >>you >> >>> work >> >>> for the government?) >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business >>model >> >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >> >>> demanding >> >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore >>Chapter >> >>> of >> >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >> >>> >>https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >> >>> calling >> >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, >>Queen of >> >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell >>Crowe), did >> >>> the >> >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >> >>> >>*https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >> >>> >>*. >> >>> The court threw out the two cases >> >>> >>https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >> >>> . >> >>> >> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the >>op-ed and >> >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, >>we had >> >>> a >> >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *From: * on behalf of >>"Mueller, >> >>> Milton L" >> >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" >> >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >> >>> *To: *governance >> >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder >>policy >> >>> development at a national level? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >> >>> >> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts >>such as >> >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global >>internet >> >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right >>exclusively, >> >>> they >> >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >> >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles >>for >> >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. >>Private >> >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the >>role >> >>> of >> >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >> >>> something >> >>> to do with local communities. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, >>wanted >> >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly >>true >> >>> of >> >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >> >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final >>say in >> >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which >>multistakeholder >> >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a >>document >> >>> written >> >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >> >>> different >> >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all >>stakeholders >> >>> could >> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” >>never >> >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the >>role >> >>> of >> >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that >>the WSIS >> >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, >>in >> >>> things >> >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the >>private >> >>> sector >> >>> as influential as governments. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs >>is >> >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet >>governance does >> >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >> >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot >>agree on >> >>> any >> >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >> >>> integrated >> >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of >>the de >> >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized >>system >> >>> such >> >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would >>threaten >> >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, >>in >> >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary >>for >> >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. >>Multistakeholder >> >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial >>governance. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >> >>> “equal >> >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of >>misses the >> >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still >>taking >> >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the >>national >> >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >> >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework >>of >> >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, >>there are >> >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >> >>> sharing >> >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at >>the >> >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global >>IG is >> >>> because there is no global sovereign. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I >>organized >> >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes >>here: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >> >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >> >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >> >>> *To:* governance >> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder >>policy >> >>> development at a national level? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> David >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter >>wrote: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might >>have >> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the >>private >> >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines >>perhaps >> >>> of >> >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few >>years ago >> >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government >>changed >> >>> that. >> >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Ian >> >>> >> >>> --- >> >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> > >> >>> List help: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> --- >> >>> To unsubscribe: >> >>> List help: >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> >> Japan >> >> www.anr.org >> >> --- >> >> To unsubscribe: >> >> List help: >> >> >> > >> >> >>-- >>------------------------ >>**Arsène Tungali* * >>Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>*, >>CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, >>Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>GPG: 523644A0 >> >>2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>< >>http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> >> >>(YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >> Member. UN IGF MAG >> Member >>--- >>To unsubscribe: >>List help: > > >-- >Andrés Piazza >@andrespiazza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Nov 25 18:46:48 2019 From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu) Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 18:46:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E1F8@MAILBOX04.unam.local> References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> <20a95e16-6e77-1a9a-2400-d025bce5589e@cippic.ca> <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557E1F8@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Message-ID: <97B43848-B9E3-40D0-9B09-852AA4778C74@post.harvard.edu> (Great) apologies for the delay in coming back. Up here in our neck of the woods, fundamental matters of democratic governance have hogged the bandwidth. But then, timelines, in our quest, are long, very long. Far beyond a few weeks. As you begin to suggest, ours is a story that stretches back – actually, many millennia. So, let's go there. Early history, governance then will surely be a story of tribal groups. The elemental building block of human social networks. With all that will be involved to acknowledge a head person, customs for resolving differences, and ways for 'moving forward.' With enough time, and growing population – and with it (internecine) power struggles you at least hint at – the hunt was effectively on for a better way forward. Churchill in my view put it best, words to the effect: "Democracy is a terrible form of government, just better than all those others we've tried." By no means does this in any way diminish the kinds of processes you point at. They are, surely, fundamental to human social functioning. But. At our scale, working effectively only when overlaid with and feeding into democracy. Elected representation, and all that entails. Do we live in an imperfect world? Of course we don't even have to ask that question. Challenges are simply rife, with democracy even threatened, see mine initially … Embroiled, instead of strengthening democracy or righting where it is largely only pretense, or advancing it where now there is no prospect. What we cannot afford to do, in this (and in my) view, is fail to be clear that democratic representation is the objective. Hence, along with those musty old practices from ancient times, now burnished with the notion 'multi-stakeholder' – proceed 'in respective roles' toward that imperfect democracy. Bulwark against autocracy. With, alongside, all that multi-stakeholder brings, also – crucially. Yours helps, for me anyway, to bring out some of the essence. If I had used 'contention' a bit more adroitly, we could distinguish between the contention that can lead finally to warfare, on the one hand. And on the other hand, the contention among ideas, which, done right, can enable quality social group functioning. Democratic deficits? That references, in the end, hundreds of millions, finally billions. Not of course what are effectively elites, who at the same time still have a role, a crucial role as you describe. All the best, David > On Nov 8, 2019, at 9:45 PM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: > > David, > > to quote from the end of your note: "cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure." > > a. cooperative effort among the parts is what multistakeholder processes are about. And no, you can't do away with the struggle for power, so that's where the institutional design comes in, including components like structures, weighting votes, mechanisms for consensus, stakeholder identification and grouping, transparency about interests, and so on. > > b. the best of these efforts do openly acknowledge their democratic deficits, if they have them, and work to reduce them. Depending on issue and circumstances this may mean outreach to include more parties, depending on third parties as backstops or overseers, and so on. > > c. in most cases in which multistakeholder mechanisms have arisen, the name "multistakeholder" hadn't even been invented when they started. They are ages old. Look at Ostrom for more. > > d. in most cases, waiting for government is not an option. Problemes require solutions. > > e. in many cases, the fine-grained nature of the issue requires faster and, ahem, more fine-grained mechanisms and action. > > f. about 2/3 of humankind is not in agreement with their government, especially in countries where elections do not take place or are totally distorted or captured. Should we tell all those people to wait for the fall of their "Iron Curtains", instead of actually doing something to bring them down, and, meanwhile, work across them? > > e. for issues related to advanced science (including social science) and technology, governments in developing countries don't have the knowledge, staff, money and other resources, understanding, and political will to even start studying them (and/or therefore rely on ITU and similar pabulum, spoon-fed to them and in exchange for votes.) We positively crossed many barriers thanks to multistakeholder mecahnisms. Not only that: we were able to shape them. Had we waited for our governments, the whole system would have been set up purely by powerful US-based corporations. I tend to intuit that this would not have been your preferred result. > > Yours, > > Alejandro Pisanty > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > Facultad de Química UNAM > Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO SMS +525541444475 > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu [david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu] > Enviado el: viernes, 08 de noviembre de 2019 16:43 > Hasta: governance > Asunto: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? > > The salient word here, it seems, is "legitimate." > > Such as, where is the legitimacy for 'civil society,' for instance for ourselves here in this discussion? In a world where 7,000,000,000+ are civil society, those who speak up in its name are an almost infinitesimally small percentage. From where does their legitimacy obtain? > > Of course, the whole point of a(n actually) functioning democracy is the _legitimate_ representation, in the end, of very large numbers of civil society / of citizens. > > That said, it is with (great) appreciation, to read the two below. > > Indeed, the successful functioning of a society, certainly one governing itself democratically, is the 'division of labor' amongst all involved. Technical, scientific, academic, business, government ... in the rhyme, the butcher, the baker and candlestick maker ... > > Where lawful requirements are the responsibility of elected officials. And where (now saying for the third time) intimate engagement in that governing process (in respective roles) by the whole society is an absolute requirement for democracy actually to work. As artfully described in some of the below. > > (Our own (intellectual) history here? The sage Santayana reminded us that "those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.") > > Does it all work seamlessly? That is hardly even a serious question ... > > But, we can see – beyond outcroppings of power struggles – the good outcome lies in cooperative effort among the parts. Rather than contention, and struggle for power among the parts, as standard operating procedure. > > David > > >> On Nov 4, 2019, at 5:24 PM, Tamir > wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I would just second what a number of folks have said, which is that while I respect and appreciate the historical origins, I think there are national contexts in which multi-stakeholder Internet policy making can be both appropriate and legitimate. >> >> Certainly the cross-territorial nature of the Internet is one of the earliest and most enduring challenges to coordinated policy-making in this space, and multi-stakeholder policy making is an important component in trying to address that, but there are other recurring challenges such as the need for flexible policies that don't necessarily align 100% with current law or should not be applied with the rigour of law, or where the technical nature of the problem requires more nuanced engagement than you can get in some traditional government-led settings. >> >> I would say the same for the 'in their respective roles' vs 'on equal footing' debate.... There's certainly going to be situations where you need a government(s) led process, particularly where implementation relies on entities voluntarily adopting measures that are counter to their own interests (which is something ICANN has at least made an attempt to get around). But in other contexts, having a venue where government actors can provide the government perspective but not have the last say can also lead to effective and legitimate outcomes, including at the national level. >> >> I think it's an enduring irony that in these contexts it's still civil society, rather than governments, who often ends up representing individual interests most aggressively, but that does still seem to be the prevailing tendency.... >> >> Best, >> Tamir >> >> On 2019-11-03 8:13 p.m., Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf >>> p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the conclusions, >>> >>> "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other factors, the “bindingness” of the agreements. Organizations such as ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG may operate with simpler rule books. >>> >>> The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they will have available for their core function." >>> >>> A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears and Kasper have a nice paper out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development which applies to the national level. >>> >>> It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades. >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alejandro Pisanty >>> >>> >>> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >>> Dr. Alejandro Pisanty >>> Facultad de Química UNAM >>> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico >>> >>> >>> >>> Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com >>> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty >>> Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 >>> Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty >>> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org >>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >>> >>> Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net ] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] >>> Enviado el: domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12 >>> Hasta: governance >>> Asunto: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >>> >>> Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. >>> >>> I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. >>> >>> Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> ------ Original Message ------ >>> From: "Andrés Piazza" > >>> To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com >>> Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com ; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > >>> Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? >>> >>>> Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR >>>> >>>> Andrés >>>> >>>> El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Arsène Tungali (>) escribió: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. >>>> >>>> In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process >>>> but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and >>>> send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even >>>> possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an >>>> input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. >>>> >>>> Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together >>>> last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion >>>> at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how >>>> we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ >>>> >>>> But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken >>>> more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby >>>> legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit >>>> more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their >>>> inputs are being taken seriously. >>>> >>>> Hope this is helpful. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Arsene >>>> >>>> 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >>>> >: >>>> > Ian, >>>> > >>>> > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to >>>> > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good >>>> > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more >>>> > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National >>>> > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems >>>> > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over >>>> > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon >>>> > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to >>>> > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the >>>> > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? >>>> > >>>> > Sivasubramanian M >>>> > >>>> > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > wrote: >>>> > >>>> >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >>>> >> PrepCom >>>> >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >>>> >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >>>> >> >>>> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >>>> >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ‘stake’ holders there don’t want >>>> >> to do that, exactly because they don’t want to lose the very stake they >>>> >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It’s >>>> >> been >>>> >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >>>> >> indeed. >>>> >> >>>> >> Izumi >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> 2019年11月2日(土) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >: >>>> >> >>>> >>> Hi all. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Chipping in…. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> “in their respective roles” >>>> >>> >>>> >>> It’s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting “in >>>> >>> their respective roles” suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>>> >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>>> >>> as >>>> >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>>> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>>> >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>>> >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>>> >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>>> >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>>> >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>>> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>>> >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>>> >>> “reasonable to good practices”. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>>> >>> Shope-Mafole >, then >>>> >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>>> >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>>> >>> someone >>>> >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>>> >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>>> >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>>> >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>>> >>> sitting >>>> >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>>> >>> work >>>> >>> for the government?) >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>>> >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer’s letters >>>> >>> demanding >>>> >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>>> >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>>> >>> calling >>>> >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>>> >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>>> >>> the >>>> >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>>> >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>>> >>> >*. >>>> >>> The court threw out the two cases >>>> >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>>> >>> . >>>> >>> >>>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>>> >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>>> >>> a >>>> >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> *From: *> on behalf of "Mueller, >>>> >>> Milton L" > >>>> >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>>> >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>>> >>> *To: *governance > >>>> >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>>> >>> development at a national level? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>>> >>> “in their respective roles” and “equal footing” arose. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>>> >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>>> >>> they >>>> >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>>> >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>>> >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>>> >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>>> >>> something >>>> >>> to do with local communities. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>>> >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>>> >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>>> >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>>> >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>>> >>> written >>>> >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>>> >>> different >>>> >>> “roles.” And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>>> >>> could >>>> >>> discuss – but _*not*_ decide – issues on an “equal footing.” >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The division of labor called for by “in their respective roles” never >>>> >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>>> >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>>> >>> things >>>> >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>>> >>> sector >>>> >>> as influential as governments. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the “public” it governs is >>>> >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>>> >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>>> >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>>> >>> any >>>> >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>>> >>> integrated >>>> >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>>> >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>>> >>> such >>>> >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>>> >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>>> >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>>> >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>>> >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether “multistakeholder governance” or >>>> >>> “equal >>>> >>> footing” is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>>> >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>>> >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>>> >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>>> >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>>> >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>>> >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>>> >>> sharing >>>> >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>>> >>> national level. The reason we’ve moved away from that for global IG is >>>> >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>>> >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>>> >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net > *On Behalf Of * >>>> >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>>> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>>> >>> *To:* governance > >>>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>>> >>> development at a national level? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> David >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>>> >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>>> >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>>> >>> of >>>> >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>>> >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>>> >>> that. >>>> >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> Ian >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --- >>>> >>> To unsubscribe: >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> List help: > >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> --- >>>> >>> To unsubscribe: > >>>> >>> List help: > >>>> >>> >>>> >> -- >>>> >> >> Izumi Aizu << >>>> >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>>> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>>> >> Japan >>>> >> www.anr.org >>>> >> --- >>>> >> To unsubscribe: > >>>> >> List help: > >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ------------------------ >>>> **Arsène Tungali* >* >>>> Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international >>>> >*, >>>> CEO,* Smart Services Sarl >*, >>>> Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) >>>> GPG: 523644A0 >>>> >>>> 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow >>>> < >>>> http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html > >>>> >>>> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member >>>> > Member. UN IGF MAG >>>> > Member >>>> --- >>>> To unsubscribe: > >>>> List help: > >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Andrés Piazza >>>> @andrespiazza >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >> >> -- >>  >> Tamir Israel >> Staff Lawyer >> >> Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) >> University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section >> 57 Louis Pasteur Street >> Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5 >> ☎: +1 613-562-5800 x 2914 >> Fax: +1 613-562-5417 >> PGP Key: 0x7F01E2C7 >> PGP Fingerprint: 871C 31EC B6CC 3029 A1A1 14C4 D119 76EC 7F01 E2C7 >> >> ♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire d’imprimer ce courriel? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Mon Nov 25 23:53:18 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amrita" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:53:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation to IGF session WS 85/268 Misinformation, Responsibilities and Trust 27 November 15:00 CET Message-ID: <025301d5a415$6c7d7f10$45787d30$@com> Dear All, Apologies for cross posting, We invite you to our roundtable workshop in IGF 2019 on "Misinformation, Responsibilities and Trust" on 27 November, 15:00 Hrs Berlin time (+1 UTC) Session name: WS 85/268 Misinformation, Responsibilities and Trust ( https://igf2019.sched.com/event/URfj/ws-85268-misinformation-responsibilitie s-and-trust ) Date : Wednesday, November 27 Time: 15:00 - 16:30 Berlin Time Venue: Raum V Sonnenallee 225, 12057 Berlin, Germany Remote participation is also available for people who are not in Berlin. You will have to register to attend remotely using this link: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2019-online-participati on-registration Please do join in if possible. Regards Amrita and Yik Chan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 05:08:59 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:08:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair Message-ID: Dear all, I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives of the academic and technical communities. Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! --- Best, Bruna Santos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 05:12:40 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 23:12:40 +1300 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulations Anriette! A well deserved appointment of tested and proven stable leadership. I look forward to the future of the IGF in 2020 and beyond under your leadership! With every best wish, Sala On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:09 PM Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- *Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala T* *P. O. Box 17862* *Suva* *Republic of Fiji* *Cell: +679 7656770; * *Home: +679 3362003* *Twitter: @SalanietaT* *"You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honour." Aristotle* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 05:15:12 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Imran Ahmed Shah (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 10:15:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <112297717.5452027.1574763312850@mail.yahoo.com> Thanks Bruna for sharing the important news. Congratulation to Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen on her appointment as Chair of UN IGF MAG. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shahfor IGF Pakistan/ Youth IGF Pakistan On Tuesday, 26 November 2019, 15:09:33 GMT+5, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: Dear all,  I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news:  The Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives of the academic and technical communities. Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette !  --- Best, Bruna Santos  --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 06:04:49 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Afonso (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:04:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <527b6b52-85b6-8d7d-c9cb-7dd56fd576e1@cafonso.ca> Wow! I have no words right now -- emotions... :-) fraternal regards --c.a. On 26-11-19 11:08, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Dear all,  > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news:  The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette > Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the > Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette !  > > ---  > Best,  > Bruna Santos  > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 06:46:23 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Deirdre Williams (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:46:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: <527b6b52-85b6-8d7d-c9cb-7dd56fd576e1@cafonso.ca> References: <527b6b52-85b6-8d7d-c9cb-7dd56fd576e1@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks Bruna Wonderful! De On 26 Nov 2019 7:06 am, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: > Wow! I have no words right now -- emotions... :-) > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 26-11-19 11:08, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing > List) wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette > > Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the > > Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > > > --- > > Best, > > Bruna Santos > > > > > > > > > > --- > > To unsubscribe: > > List help: > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] > [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] > > Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br > ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 06:51:06 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (SILLAH Kawsu (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:51:06 +0000 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Wonderful news. Congratulations to Anriette and all the best on this role. No doubt she will deliver beyond expectations. Kind regards, Kawsu On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 10:09 Bruna Martins dos Santos, < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 06:55:34 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Mawaki Chango (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:55:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for this great news. Congratulations, Anriette... Way to go! Wishing the MAG every success under your steady leadership. Mawaki On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bommelaer at isoc.org Tue Nov 26 07:16:07 2019 From: bommelaer at isoc.org (Constance Bommelaer) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 12:16:07 +0000 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Congratulations dear Anriette! Constance ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net on behalf of Mawaki Chango Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 12:55 PM To: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com ; governance Subject: Re: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair Thanks for this great news. Congratulations, Anriette... Way to go! Wishing the MAG every success under your steady leadership. Mawaki On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 10:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos > wrote: Dear all, I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives of the academic and technical communities. Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! --- Best, Bruna Santos --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From apisan at unam.mx Sun Nov 3 20:13:17 2019 From: apisan at unam.mx (Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch) Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 01:13:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? In-Reply-To: References: <716BFBEF-4EDB-4864-AFFF-9E37FDE0F343@post.harvard.edu> <4434A78C-62A3-476E-BAD2-CC178E5714B1@staff.main.ntu.edu.sg> , Message-ID: <6DCAB3E586E6A34FB17223DF8D8F0D3D037557D865@MAILBOX04.unam.local> Hi, you may find useful my chapter on multistakeholder governance in https://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdfhttps://www.apc.org/sites/default/files/IG_10_Final.pdf p. 189 ff. Multistakeholder governance is used in many fields, like sports, finance, the environment, etc. The involvement, roles, responsiblities and "teeth" of these mechanisms vary widely across issues, places, time, and stakeholder groups. To quote from the conclusions, "It is a laboratory for many other fields of endeavour. The complexity of the organizations varies enormously according to, among other factors, the ��bindingness�� of the agreements. Organizations such as ICANN, which intermediate numerous complex relationships among players who have a whole industry at stake, and whose resolutions may be binding for the parties in the form of policies and signed contracts, require complex rule-making procedures, mechanisms for review and potentially reversal and redress of decisions, as well as dealing with their own processes. More open, less binding processes, like the Internet Governance Forum, or smaller, focused organizations like APWG may operate with simpler rule books. The need for oversight of process and decisions may be satisfied internally and may or may not appear sufficient to third parties. The more organizations learn to manage the risk of undue oversight the less energy they will have to devote to self-defence and the more they will have available for their core function." A recent, specific case is national cybersecurity strategies. Shears and Kasper have a nice paper out, https://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-developmenthttps://www.gp-digital.org/publication/multistakeholder-approaches-to-national-cybersecurity-strategy-development which applies to the national level. It is an uphill struggle no doubt. In many Internet-related issues the technical community, civil society, and business find themselves more or less on the same side at least in the first-order approximation (the side of innovation, openness, universality, and other Internet principles) vis-a-vis government, so strategy and tactics require both recognizing the affinities and differentiating in order not to do business's dirty work. Surprisingly, the advocacy for a strict separation of "in their respective roles" ends up siding with governments and intergovernmental institutions, even for organizations that have sought independence or stood in opposition to them for decades. Yours, Alejandro Pisanty - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Facultad de Qu��mica UNAM Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ________________________________ Desde: governance-request at lists.riseup.net [governance-request at lists.riseup.net] en nombre de Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Enviado el: domingo, 03 de noviembre de 2019 18:12 Hasta: governance Asunto: Re[2]: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Yes, the discussion sure has varied, but lots of interesting inputs. I found Miltons history of multistakeholderism quite interesting - in that the term was not invented to apply at a national level where presumably things were always going well, but was intended to apply to the global dimension where there was a presumed problem. Nevertheless - how do we get civil society involved effectively at a national level? Lots of interesting examples here, but it would be great to pull out some best practice examples, or some principles for civil society involvement, that people could use to suggest to their governments effective ways of doing things. Ian ------ Original Message ------ From: "Andr��s Piazza" > To: arsenebaguma at gmail.com Cc: 6.internet at gmail.com; "Izumi Aizu" >; "Ang Peng Hwa (Prof)" >; "CWCS (IGC)" > Sent: 4/11/2019 10:44:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy development at a national level? Despite the original purpose of this discussion has evolved, I still wanted to name the IXPs in Argentina with CABASE adding other stakeholders and, more recently, multisectorial Blockchain initiative BFA.AR Andr��s El dom., 3 nov. 2019 a las 13:18, Ars��ne Tungali (>) escribi��: Hi all, This is a good discussion, thanks Ian for asking. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, there is no formal process but different groups try to lobby legislators the way they can and send them inputs. At some point in the years, this was not even possible for most civil society groups to come together and work on an input to be sent on a specific matter under discussion. Rudi International, the non-profit I lead was able to come together last year and gather inputs on an ICT bill that was under discussion at Senate level (and actually is still). You have details here on how we did this: https://rudiinternational.org/2018/07/20/the-congolese-senate-received-inputs-to-the-telecom-and-ict-draft-bill/ But it is worth to note that inputs from the private sector are taken more seriously mostly because they have resources to better lobby legislators more than civil society would do. The later could benefit more with resources in order to have a strong voice to make sure their inputs are being taken seriously. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Arsene 2019-11-02 18:04 UTC+03:00, sivasubramanian muthusamy >: > Ian, > > Where do we go from here? For some reason Governments are rather slow to > embrace the multi-stakeholder process though there are good signs of a good > start by some countries. Multi-stakeholder process can swiftly and far more > effectively address's and resolve not only IG concerns but general National > and global concerns with a stream of creative solutions to problems > including the seemingly impossible governance problems left unresolved over > centuries. What could the Multi-stakeholder community do to impress upon > Governments on the value of the process, and what could the Community do to > prompt swifter, wholehearted adoption with the trust that the > Multi-stakeholder process wouldn't hurt? > > Sivasubramanian M > > On Sat, Nov 2, 2019, 10:01 AM Izumi AIZU > wrote: > >> Well said, Peng Hwa, citing Lyndall from SA government who chaired >> PrepCom >> 2 of UN WSIS that led WGIG which proposed IGF, at a night when South >> Africa won Rugby World Cup against all ids here in Japan. >> >> IMHO, if IGF wants to remain relevant, there should be a bold reform, say >> making from scratch. But I doubt most of ��stake�� holders there don��t want >> to do that, exactly because they don��t want to lose the very stake they >> got? Be it business, government, tech community or civil society. It��s >> been >> so long since 2003 for WSIS or ICANN since around 1997/8. Aging problem >> indeed. >> >> Izumi >> >> >> 2019��11��2��(��) 14:23 Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) >: >> >>> Hi all. >>> >>> Chipping in��. >>> >>> ��in their respective roles�� >>> >>> It��s a bit of glass half-empty or half-full perspective. Inserting ��in >>> their respective roles�� suggests that civil society has a role. From one >>> perspective therefore, moving from non-recognition to being recognised >>> as >>> having a role was a major deal. Hence the phrase was accepted. >>> >>> > And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders could >>> discuss �C but _*not*_ decide �C issues >>> >>> The problem with the IGF is not the decision, which yes, any attempt to >>> arrive at that will be challenging to say the least. The IGF mandate >>> includes the power to recommend. But many business stakeholders in >>> particular did not want even that. Yes, there are best practice fora but >>> for many government types, this is (note present tense, from past >>> imperfect) not enough for their bosses. >>> >>> > I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, >>> >>> I suspect that it will be difficult if not impossible to locate >>> ��reasonable to good practices��. I am reminded of a remark by Lyndall >>> Shope-Mafole , then >>> Chairperson, Presidential National Commission on Information Society and >>> Development of South Africa, Pretoria, at a WGIG meeting in which >>> someone >>> said that it was difficult for civil society to effect policy. She said >>> that when you push, you must expect pushback but then you must keep >>> pushing. And if you cannot do that, you will not effect policy. >>> >>> >>> >>> I have one example from Singapore. (Just one. The Singapore Government >>> does so much of the policy work that once when I told the passenger >>> sitting >>> next to me on a flight that I did policy work, his response was: you >>> work >>> for the government?) >>> >>> >>> >>> This was the case of the movie Dallas Buyers Club. Its business model >>> apparently includes sending illegal downloaders lawyer��s letters >>> demanding >>> S$5,000 (US$3,500) for the download. The ex-co of the Singapore Chapter >>> of >>> the Internet Society, many of whom are lawyers, wrote an op-ed >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/dallas-buyers-club-case-threatening-subscribers-wont-stop-piracy >>> calling >>> for some safeguards against the practice. When the next cases, Queen of >>> the Desert (Nicole Kidman) and Fathers & Daughters (Russell Crowe), did >>> the >>> same thing, the Attorney-General and the IP Office stepped in >>> *https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/ipos-agc-seek-intervene-court-proceedings-alleged-illegal-movie-downloading-case >>> *. >>> The court threw out the two cases >>> https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/high-court-throws-out-hollywood-movie-piracy-case >>> . >>> >>> There was another happy ending: the paper gave us $300 for the op-ed and >>> as just about the entire committee had contributed to the op-ed, we had >>> a >>> satisfying lunch meeting. >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Ang Peng Hwa >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From: *> on behalf of "Mueller, >>> Milton L" > >>> *Reply-To: *"Mueller, Milton L" > >>> *Date: *Saturday, 2 November 2019 at 10:57 AM >>> *To: *governance > >>> *Subject: *RE: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian, David, Tamir: >>> >>> Sorry for my late entry into this discussion. >>> >>> >>> >>> We need to understand the historical context in which concepts such as >>> ��in their respective roles�� and ��equal footing�� arose. >>> >>> >>> >>> In the first phase of WSIS, governments insisted that global internet >>> policy could only be made by them. That was their right exclusively, >>> they >>> believed, based on classic, 19th century concepts of territorial >>> sovereignty. If you read the WSIS Declaration you see the roles for >>> governments, civil society and the private sector spelled out. Private >>> sector was supposed to be confined to operational matters, and the role >>> of >>> civil society is so vague as to be almost laughable, but it had >>> something >>> to do with local communities. >>> >>> >>> >>> The civil society and private sector actors, on the other hand, wanted >>> equal status in global internet governance. This was particularly true >>> of >>> those involved in ICANN, which was a non-governmental governance >>> institution, in which governments not only did not have the final say in >>> making policy, but actually were confined to an advisory capacity. >>> >>> >>> >>> WSIS was a (not very coherent) compromise in which multistakeholder >>> governance was formally recognized and accepted, but (as a document >>> written >>> entirely by governments) said that the different stakeholders had >>> different >>> ��roles.�� And the IGF was created as a forum in which all stakeholders >>> could >>> discuss �C but _*not*_ decide �C issues on an ��equal footing.�� >>> >>> >>> >>> The division of labor called for by ��in their respective roles�� never >>> really worked. ICANN went on about its business, strengthening the role >>> of >>> governments but never elevating them to the special status that the WSIS >>> resolutions wanted. GAC is still advisory, and outside of ICANN, in >>> things >>> like the issue of cyber norms, we see civil society and the private >>> sector >>> as influential as governments. >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet governance is transnational and the ��public�� it governs is >>> transnational, yet governments are territorial. Internet governance does >>> not work by means of formal treaties negotiated among territorial >>> sovereigns, for two reasons: 1) because the governments cannot agree on >>> any >>> rules, and 2) in IG, operational and technical matters are fully >>> integrated >>> with policy decisions so that private sector really has a lot of the de >>> facto decision making power. Any attempt to govern a globalized system >>> such >>> as the DNS based on territorial sovereignty, for example, would threaten >>> the global compatibility of the internet. >>> >>> >>> >>> The thing to understand here is that multistakeholder governance, in >>> which national governments do NOT hold the final say, is necessary for >>> cyberspace because cyberspace is global, transnational. Multistakeholder >>> gov fills the gaps left by the shortcomings of territorial governance. >>> >>> >>> >>> Now, for you to ask, Ian, whether ��multistakeholder governance�� or >>> ��equal >>> footing�� is needed or works at the _*national*_ level kind of misses the >>> point of the whole debate over MS that took place (and is still taking >>> place) around _*global*_ internet governance. Of course at the national >>> level, you have a single sovereign government and it is much less >>> problematic for national decisions to be made under the framework of >>> traditional national governance. And in democratic societies, there are >>> all kinds of consultations, public-private partnerships, and power >>> sharing >>> arrangements but in the final analysis the state is the decider at the >>> national level. The reason we��ve moved away from that for global IG is >>> because there is no global sovereign. >>> >>> >>> >>> These issues are very close to the theme of an IGF workshop I organized >>> along with Bill Drake. You can check out the speakers and themes here: >>> >>> >>> >>> https://igf2019.sched.com/event/8255ed1c308e604776fbb689d39138dd >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* governance-request at lists.riseup.net < >>> governance-request at lists.riseup.net> *On Behalf Of * >>> david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 29, 2019 8:36 PM >>> *To:* governance > >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Good examples of muiltistakeholder policy >>> development at a national level? >>> >>> >>> >>> How about "in their respective roles"? >>> >>> >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Oct 29, 2019, at 4:42 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> I am interested to know of examples of nation states that might have >>> reasonable to good practices for involving civil society and the private >>> sector in internet related policy development, along the lines perhaps >>> of >>> the ancient WSIS definition of "on an equal footing". >>> >>> >>> >>> Is anyone doing this this other than in a token fashion? A few years ago >>> we had a good example with Brazil, but a change of government changed >>> that. >>> What are our good examples now, or don't they exist? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> >> >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: >>> >> -- >> >> Izumi Aizu << >> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >> Japan >> www.anr.org >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> > -- ------------------------ **Ars��ne Tungali* * Co-Founder & Executive Director, *Rudi international *, CEO,* Smart Services Sarl *, Tel: +243 993810967 (DRC) GPG: 523644A0 2015 Mandela Washington Fellow < http://tungali.blogspot.com/2015/06/selected-for-2015-mandela-washington.html> (YALI) - ICANN GNSO Council Member Member. UN IGF MAG Member --- To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Andr��s Piazza @andrespiazza -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue Nov 26 08:04:14 2019 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:04:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process Message-ID: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already known? Greetings, Norbert From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 08:15:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:15:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> References: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> Message-ID: Maybe we will know soon after the opening ceremony which is underway here in Berlin On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:04 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already > known? > > Greetings, > Norbert > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 08:54:51 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:54:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 and preparatory process In-Reply-To: References: <20191126140414.4f0cfb4b@quill> Message-ID: Next IGF is in Poland and dates have yet to be confirmed. What we can start doing is identify themes that we feel the MAG should include in the IGF at the MAG opening meeting next year. But to start preparing now. On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, 2:16 pm Arsène Tungali, wrote: > Maybe we will know soon after the opening ceremony which is underway here > in Berlin > > On Tue, Nov 26, 2019, 2:04 PM Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Are the dates for the 2020 IGF and its preparatory process already >> known? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 08:55:42 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Ephraim Percy Kenyanito (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 16:55:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] OEWG: Informal civil society meet up at IGF on 27 November 2019 at room 20629 (6th Floor) 1700Hrs Message-ID: Dear colleagues, I am reaching out regarding a short informal meet up here at the IGF for tomorrow at 1700 to 1730 HRS where we can have informal conversations regarding the upcoming meeting in New York and anything else Cyber and human rights. :) Feel free to reach me or Mallory, copied here in case of any questions. --- Best Regards, *Ephraim Percy Kenyanito* Senior Programme Officer: Digital [image: Article 19] *ARTICLE 19 *Defending Freedom of Expression and Information W www.article19.org Tw @article19org Fa facebook.com/article19org PGP Fingerprint: B0FA394AF73DEB7AA1FDC7360CFED26DE6BA8DC1 Book a meeting: https://calendly.com/ekenyanito -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 09:09:52 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Sarah Kiden (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:09:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very good news! Congratulations to Anriette! On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 11:09, Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Sent from Gmail Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 17:36:04 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:36:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congratulation to Anriette. Well deserved and best of luck. Regards. On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear all, > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen > of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet > Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! > > --- > Best, > Bruna Santos > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Best regards *Taiwo Peter Akinremi* ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ IT Manager/Advisory *Phone*; +2348187476292, +2347063830177 *Skype*: akinremi.taiwo *Email:* info at compsoftnet.com.ng *Website:* www.compsoftnet.com.ng ___________________________________________ *What is the most precious things to you? * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Tue Nov 26 09:37:36 2019 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:37:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <21EF1D0F-E04B-45EA-8225-3FA17C2F323B@hellmonds.eu> Dear Anriette, That is wonderful news. Congratulations! Hope to chat with you in Berlin. Peter Peter H. Hellmonds +49 160 360 2852 > On 26. Nov 2019, at 11:09, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >  Dear all, I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, including representatives of the academic and technical communities. Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! --- Best, Bruna Santos --- To unsubscribe: List help: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 26 09:55:14 2019 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:55:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5025FDF2-A4E8-4ABD-BD4C-529AA97A5C75@itforchange.net> It is such a good news. Congrats Anriette! On November 26, 2019 11:36:04 PM GMT+01:00, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote: >Congratulation to Anriette. > >Well deserved and best of luck. > >Regards. > >On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 2:09 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news: The >> Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette >Esterhuysen >> of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the Internet >> Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. >> >> The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on >the >> programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises >50 >> members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, >> including representatives of the academic and technical communities. >> >> Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette ! >> >> --- >> Best, >> Bruna Santos >> >> >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > > >-- >Best regards > >*Taiwo Peter Akinremi* >------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------- >------ >------ ------- ------ ------ ------ > IT Manager/Advisory >*Phone*; +2348187476292, +2347063830177 *Skype*: akinremi.taiwo >*Email:* info at compsoftnet.com.ng *Website:* www.compsoftnet.com.ng >___________________________________________ >*What is the most precious things to you? * -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 09:59:33 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Amali De Silva (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:59:33 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] Anriette Esterhuysen appointed as the MAG Chair In-Reply-To: References: <527b6b52-85b6-8d7d-c9cb-7dd56fd576e1@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <242490726.5555156.1574780373770@mail.yahoo.com> Congratulations! Amali  De Silva-Mitchell      On Tuesday, November 26, 2019, 03:46:42 a.m. PST, Deirdre Williams wrote: Thanks Bruna Wonderful! De On 26 Nov 2019 7:06 am, "Carlos Afonso" wrote: Wow! I have no words right now -- emotions... :-) fraternal regards --c.a. On 26-11-19 11:08, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Dear all,  > > I just wanted to share some wonderful wonderful news:  The > Secretary-General António Guterres has appointed Ms. Anriette > Esterhuysen of the Republic of South Africa ‎as the new Chair of the > Internet Governance Forum’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group. > > The Multistakeholder Advisory Group advises the Secretary-General on the > programme of Internet Governance Forum annual meetings. It comprises 50 > members drawn from Governments, the private sector and civil society, > including representatives of the academic and technical communities. > > Congratulations and the best of luck, Anriette !  > > ---  > Best,  > Bruna Santos  > > > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -- Carlos A. Afonso [emails são pessoais exceto quando explicitamente indicado em contrário] [emails are personal unless explicitly indicated otherwise] Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br ISOC-BR - https://isoc.org.br --- To unsubscribe: List help: --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Nov 26 11:17:48 2019 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 13:17:48 -0300 Subject: [governance] PIR Case/or the .org sell Message-ID: Dear all, As promised, here follows some links about the PIR sell case. - https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/26/org_selloff_internet/ - https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191113005661/en/Ethos-Capital-Acquire-Public-Interest-Registry-Internet - https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/11/25/what-to-do-about-org/ - http://blogs.harvard.edu/sj/2019/11/23/a-tale-of-icann-and-regulatory-capture-the-dot-org-heist/ Just as mentioned yesterday at the meeting and also present at some of the above posted links, theres an interpretation that ICANN could still intervened in such deal based on the article 7.5 of the registry base agreement signed with ICANN. I know that there has been a few statements on this subject and I believe the Non-commercial Stakeholders Group at icann was considering issuing a new one, but thats still something IGC can do if we achieve consensus. I promise to follow up with some more links and points on this subject. Best, Bruna Santos -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: