From LB at lucabelli.net Mon Feb 3 14:56:30 2020 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2020 12:56:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Platform Values In-Reply-To: <20191116092352.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ba09a6efed.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <20200203125630.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.3551405582.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all, in case you are interested, the Computer Law & Security Review (CLSR) special issue on Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial Intelligence and Tax Avoidance will be in Open Access until the end of 2020 https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computer-law-and-security-review/special-issue/10L87CSMG55 Below, you will find the table of contents. I hope you will enjoy the reading! Best regards Luca Table of contents + Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online Responsibility Luca Belli & Nicolo Zingales https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303759 Introductory Essays + Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values José van Dijck https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303887 + A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance Nicolas Suzorhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303929 + From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform Act Harold Feld https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303899 Conflicting Rights + The New City Regulators: Platform and Public Values in Smart and Sharing Cities Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303863 + Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the Modern Public Square Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303838 + A New Framework for Online Content Moderation Ivar Hartmann https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303875 Artificial Intelligence + Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship Rolf H. Weber https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303917 + Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework Giovanni De Gregorio https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303851 + Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate Digital Disinformation? Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026736491930384X 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 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303930# + E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms Play a Valuable Role? Luisa Scarcella https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303826 Annex + Best Practices Platforms' Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform Responsibility https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303905 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: [governance] Platform Values From: "LB at lucabelli.net" Date: 11/16/19 1:23 pm To: "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , "governance" 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. --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 12 16:25:08 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 21:25:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] France opposes sale of .ORG Message-ID: Dear all, Sharing this letter for information purposes. The French Republic has written to ICANN outlining its objections to the sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/verdier-to-marby-07feb20-en.pdf Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Wed Feb 12 17:59:57 2020 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 22:59:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Guide to public comment on the EPDP Whois report Message-ID: Dear colleagues: I've written this blog to alert people to the opening of public comment on ICANN's Whois reform process. It is intended to inform people about the issues that are raised in the report. Please read and circulate to privacy advocates and data protection authorities that you know. https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/02/12/can-we-automate-gdpr-compliance-time-for-public-comment-on-whois-reform/ 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: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 19569 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Fri Feb 14 04:31:55 2020 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2020 02:31:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] CPDP LatAm Message-ID: <20200214023155.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0f0e78c197.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all, It is a great pleasure to announce that the Latin American edition of the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference will be held at Fundação Getulio Vargas, in Rio de Janeiro, from the 23rd to 25th of June. The first edition of CPDP LatAm will be dedicated to Data Protection in Latin America: Democracy, Innovation and Regulation. See www.cpdp.lat The event will have a tripartite structure, combining the Latin American editions of CPDP, the MyData conference, and thePrivacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC), serving as a platform to stimulate discussion, raise awareness and elaborate solutions regarding the most pressing data protection issues for Latin America. The conference programme will be composed of panels exploring themes suggested by the conference participants and selected by our Multistakeholder Advisory Board, and discussing papers selected by the our Scientific Committee (see, below, our Call for Papers, Call for Panels, and Team). The first day will be dedicated to multistakeholder debates. The second day will include the first MyData Latin American Meeting and will be dedicated to analyzing innovative approaches and technologies that facilitate data protection. The third day will be dedicated to the first Latin American Privacy Law Scholars Conference. As a side event, CPDP LatAm will also include the first BRICS Data Protection Summit, on 23 June https://cyberbrics.info/brics-data-protection-summit/ IMPORTANT: travel grants will be available for Latin American participants. All those in need of travel support are invited to specify it in the session or paper submission forms. Please feel free to share this message or the links to calls that you find below through your networks. Best regards Luca Call for Papers Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) LatAm e Privacy Law Scholars Conference (PLSC) LatAm Articles can be in Portuguese, Spanish or English. English articles presented at the conference may be included (after double blind peer-review) in the special issue of the Oxford Journal of International Data Privacy Law dedicated to Data Protection in Latin America. Articles in Portuguese and Spanish presented at the conference may be published in the Revista Brasileira de Direitos Fundamentais e Justiça [Brazilian Journal of Fundamental Rights and Justice] (Qualis A2). Important dates Deadline for abstract submission: April 10, 2020, at 11:59 pm Communication of selected works: April 30, 2020. If the authors are interested, the articles that are selected for presentation at the conference will undergo a second stage of review (“peer-review”) to be later included in publications related to the event, as described in more details below. Call for Papershttps://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-papers/ Chamada para Artigoshttps://cpdp.lat/pt-br/artigos/ Convocatoria de artículoshttps://cpdp.lat/es/llamada-de-articulos/ Call for Panels Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) LatAm and MyData LatAm Important dates Deadline for submission of panels: April 10, 2020, at 23:59 Deadline to receive acceptance response: April 30, 2020 Completion of the panel organization: May 30, 2020 CPDP LatAm 2020 Dates: June 23-25, 2020 Call for Panelshttps://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Chamada para Painéishttps://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ Convocatoria de Paneleshttps://cpdp.lat/es/llamada-de-paneles/ Our Team About us https://cpdp.lat/en/about-us/ Quem somos https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/quem-somos/ Quiénes somos https://cpdp.lat/es/quienes-somos/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 19 17:42:23 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:42:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty' Message-ID: Dear all, Regarding the sale of .ORG, in The Register today it was reported: "... word has reached us that Ethos Capital attempted to broker a secret peace treaty this coming weekend in Washington DC by inviting key individuals to a closed-door meeting with the goal of thrashing out an agreement all sides would be happy with. After Ethos insisted the meeting be kept brief, and a number of those opposed to the sale declined to attend, Ethos's funding for attendees' flights and accommodation was suddenly withdrawn, and the plan to hold a confab fell apart, we understand." https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/ I asked on an internal ISOC mailing list if any additional information was available on this "secret peace treaty." For information purposes and because it is not otherwise accessible to those not unsubscribed to one particular ISOC list, I am attaching the document that was shared with me and which can be made public. It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Meeting plan for .org.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71861 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 19 17:49:52 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 22:49:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial board - "Act in the public interest: Protect the integrity of the .org domain" Message-ID: Dear all, An important editorial has appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette regarding the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital: Act in the public interest: Protect the integrity of the .org domain https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2020/02/13/Public-interest-org-domain-registry-integrity-ICANN-ISOC/stories/202001210022 As the Pennsylvania Orphans Court could well put a stop to the sale of .ORG, it is important and impactful to see such a strong editorial published by a hometown newspaper. Nora Abusitta-Ouri of Ethos Capital [offers a rebuttal here](http://www.circleid.com/posts/20200218_stop_propagating_false_information_about_the_org_transaction/). On another mailing list, Richard Hill has offered an annotated response to her post. I am pasting it below for information purposes. Nora writes: “[helping non-profits fulfill their mission] … starts with ensuring that current profits from .ORG are used to directly benefit the .ORG community. Currently, those profits go to the Internet Society for the general benefit of the Internet. We'd like to see them dedicated to .ORG.” According to the information that has been made public, $24 million/year (at least for the first year) of the .ORG profit stream will go to paying the interest on the $ 360 million loan that is being used to fund the purchase of PIR. The profit stream has averaged $ 40 million/year recently. Even if you take the value for the last year, $ 58 million, a significant portion of the revenue stream will go to funding the loan, not to .ORG itself. So a good chunk of the profits would go to the banks/financial institutions that are providing the loan. That does not appear to me to ensure that profits would be used to directly benefit the .ORG community. And that’s payment of the interest. Presumably money will have to be put aside to pay back the loan. And presumably the folks who are providing the $775 million in cash want some return on their investment, so whatever they get won’t go to benefit the .ORG registrants. Or are we supposed to believe that the privately held funds that are providing the $ 775 million will be happy to get no return whatsoever on their investment? How about believing in the tooth fairy? Nora writes: “[.ORG] is both a symbol of non-profits and mission-driven organizations on in the Internet and a means by which millions of organizations operate, communicate, fundraise, and, provide services to those in need.” Exactly. And that’s precisely why many of those non-profits object in principle to transferring .ORG from a non-profit entity to a for-profit entity which, to make things worse, is privately owned, meaning it has no obligation to publish any financial information. Nora writes: “The community deserves guarantees about .ORG's future. That is why Ethos and PIR have made commitments on prices, policy making and community enablement.” If Ethos sincerely believed that the community deserves guarantees, then it would have made binding commitments, not just marketing statements that can be withdrawn at any time. Further, the commitments would go further than what Ethos has proposed in terms of the Stewardship Council and the incorporation as a public benefits corporation. And Ethos would have consulted the community in order to develop those commitments. At a minimum, Ethos would have made binding commitments to abide by the criteria under which .ORG was assigned to ISOC/PIR by ICANN in 2002, which is what ICANN’s Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) has formally requested. In my view, there is no new or convincing information in Nora’s statement. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 19 18:03:08 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:03:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet Society reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is not a whole lot of substance in this response from ISOC (in my opinion). That being said, ICANN has recently sent a letter to ISOC that raises a number of very important questions that challenge much of the narrative advanced in ISOC's letter to us. That letter can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-camarillo-13feb20-en.pdf I also encourage the reading of this letter from Jones Day, ICANN's counsel, to Ethos Capital, disputing a number of Ethos Capital's talking points: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/levee-to-boglivi-13feb20-en.pdf In addition, as The Register has noted, it is not Ethos Capital itself who will own the Public Interest Registry if the sale concludes. That will be another shell company, Purpose Domains Direct LLC, of which we know nothing about, not even its directors. So the assurances of Ethos Capital mean very little if they are not in direct charge of Purpose Domains Direct LLC. Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, 7 February 2020 20:20, Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote: > Dear IGC, > > I would like to share with you ISOCs reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. > > Important to mention that the Co-Cos and the tech team are working on publishing our Letter to ISOC on our website and they are also interested in doing the same, for transparency purposes. > > best regards, > -- > Bruna Martins dos Santos > IGC Co-Coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Feb 19 18:26:50 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:26:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8BE9CCC5-A146-45D7-B697-96948C45BA7D@gmail.com> Ayden, I think that it was is clearly unfair of you to post this document, of which I am the principal author, without also posting the context in which I presented it on the ISOC Policy list. I am posting that context here below, as well as the original copy of the document. You asked me a number of followup questions, and I responded to those, I am also posting that interchange below. In particular, you could have already read the first message below, and if you believed that I was reporting truthfully, you knew that I was the instigator of the proposed meeting, not anyone else. Yet you post below: "It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics." There is no truth to the implications in this statement and I believe that you know it. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On 19/02/2020 15:22, George Sadowsky via InternetPolicy wrote: > All, > > I am intervening to provide the facts about the so-called "secret peace treaty" as Kieren so ineptly and inaccurately appeared to characterize it. > > I am the principal author of the attached document that describes what my colleague Kathy Kleiman and I were trying to accomplish in working toward the so-called "secret meeting." It wasn't secret and it wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to understand the best ways of salvaging what we could that was valuable from the damage being done during the current uproar about the proposed .org sale. The document speaks for itself. It's attached at the bottom of this message. Read it. > > We wanted to provide an opportunity to explore possible paths that would minimize damage to the ISOC/.org/NGO/NFP community when this issue was finally resolved, whether it was resolved one way or the other. We believe that there is an enormous amount of value of value in what ISOC and PIR have accomplished, both jointly and separately, and we want to preserve it and build upon it for a better Internet not only for this community but also for all Internet beneficiaries, current and future.. These are institutions that have contributed substantially to a better and more accessible Internet and to the well-being of our community. If that is a crime, I proudly plead guilty. > > We offered the meeting as a mechanism that might lead to a better choice of solutions for all of is, i.e. a win-win-win scenario. We hoped that we could find or craft out-of-the-box ways in which all of us could benefit more than what appears to be happening now. We thought that this community might actually appreciate attempts to improve what is now approaching a very polarized state of affairs. > > We approached participants involved in the sale for funding because we felt that it would be an opportunity for them to learn and discuss objections to the sale in a rational and non-accusatory environment. We believe that the current state of polarization discourages if not prevents rational discussion in a fully open meeting, and we hoped for new ideas from the meeting that could then be floated openly among a much sider group. Based upon their plans and their constraints, the sale participants felt that the proposed meeting did not fit into their idea how to proceed, and after considerable discussion including a lot of listening on their part, they declined. I think that they made a mistake, but they in turn believe that they are acting in their best interests. That is their right. > > If you think that the approach of having such a meeting is wrong, attack me, not them. I am the principal person responsible. If in the future you are interested in the truth, I suggest that you should find a more reliable source from which to get your information. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On Feb 19, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: > > Thank you for sharing this document, George. > > Can you please expand upon why there was a desire for this meeting to happen in a closed environment? I thought one concern about the sale - expressed over and over again since November - was the whole lack of transparency and open consultation. Yes. Open meetings discourage frank and open discussion when the situation is polarized, and therefore discussants generally play to their constituencies who are watching. That results in arguments, not discussions. You can consider the posts on this subjects on this list to have been an open meeting of sorts, and the tendency for posters has been to posts strengthening their side of the argument rather than trying to work with the other side. There is a good case to be made for open meetings and for transparency much of the time, but not always. I judge mechanisms like that on the basis of the outcome of the process involved rather than on the tools used to get there. The proposed meeting was to be a group of colleagues, admittedly with dirreent and conflicting goals, to explore whether there were solutions that hadn't been considered that could make everyone better off. Closed meetings allow discussants to take chances with ideas, to know that their explorations into areas that are perhaps dogmatically held by their group won't be used to discredit them later. There are opposite sides represented, and the temptation in an open meeting to remember what the opposite side said and to use it in a negative way against them later often seems too good to resist. > > > You say that this meeting "wasn't secret", but when the first time that many of us are hearing about this proposal was in the media, it certainly seems like it was some sort of secret. Let's differentiate between 'secret,' locally informed and globally uninformed' and 'broadcast to a larger community .' There are gradations here in the extent to which information gets distributed. If I get a group of colleagues together to brainstorm informally, I see no need to tell a large number of people that I am doing it. That was the sense in which we proceeded.. Most of us do this informally much of the time, including our side conversations at larger meetings which are open, such as ICANN meetings. There's nothing wrong with it since we're not making decisions that affect people or institutions who are not there. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear all, > > Regarding the sale of .ORG, in The Register today it was reported: > > "... word has reached us that Ethos Capital attempted to broker a secret peace treaty this coming weekend in Washington DC by inviting key individuals to a closed-door meeting with the goal of thrashing out an agreement all sides would be happy with. After Ethos insisted the meeting be kept brief, and a number of those opposed to the sale declined to attend, Ethos's funding for attendees' flights and accommodation was suddenly withdrawn, and the plan to hold a confab fell apart, we understand." > > https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/ > > I asked on an internal ISOC mailing list if any additional information was available on this "secret peace treaty." For information purposes and because it is not otherwise accessible to those not unsubscribed to one particular ISOC list, I am attaching the document that was shared with me and which can be made public. > > It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics. > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Meeting plan for .org.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71861 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ayden at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 19 18:34:41 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:34:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty' In-Reply-To: <8BE9CCC5-A146-45D7-B697-96948C45BA7D@gmail.com> References: <8BE9CCC5-A146-45D7-B697-96948C45BA7D@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear George, Thank you for sharing this information. I did not feel it appropriate for me to forward your messages to this list, as only the document I shared had been made clear was public. But I appreciate you sharing the fuller exchange here for those who are interested in reviewing it. I understand that you instigated the proposed meeting. I also understand you are a current candidate for the ISOC Board of Trustees, and I believe you have previously served on the Board. And given funding was initially offered for this meeting by either Ethos or ISOC (I am not sure which), you clearly had some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiations with them in order to arrange this. So I think it is fair to say that ISOC was a party to this meeting - they agreed to send representatives, after all - and I have seen no evidence that they objected to the meeting being a closed one. Am I mistaken? Did ISOC want it to be open? It is still not clear to me how you (or who) chose people to invite to participate in this meeting. Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, 20 February 2020 00:26, George Sadowsky wrote: > Ayden, > > I think that it was is clearly unfair of you to post this document, of which I am the principal author, without also posting the context in which I presented it on the ISOC Policy list. I am posting that context here below, as well as the original copy of the document. You asked me a number of followup questions, and I responded to those, I am also posting that interchange below. > > In particular, you could have already read the first message below, and if you believed that I was reporting truthfully, you knew that I was the instigator of the proposed meeting, not anyone else. Yet you post below: > > "It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics." > > There is no truth to the implications in this statement and I believe that you know it. > > George Sadowsky > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > On 19/02/2020 15:22, George Sadowsky via InternetPolicy wrote: > >> All, >> >> I am intervening to provide the facts about the so-called "secret peace treaty" as Kieren so ineptly and inaccurately appeared to characterize it. >> >> I am the principal author of the attached document that describes what my colleague Kathy Kleiman and I were trying to accomplish in working toward the so-called "secret meeting." It wasn't secret and it wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to understand the best ways of salvaging what we could that was valuable from the damage being done during the current uproar about the proposed .org sale. The document speaks for itself. It's attached at the bottom of this message. Read it. >> >> We wanted to provide an opportunity to explore possible paths that would minimize damage to the ISOC/.org/NGO/NFP community when this issue was finally resolved, whether it was resolved one way or the other. We believe that there is an enormous amount of value of value in what ISOC and PIR have accomplished, both jointly and separately, and we want to preserve it and build upon it for a better Internet not only for this community but also for all Internet beneficiaries, current and future.. These are institutions that have contributed substantially to a better and more accessible Internet and to the well-being of our community. If that is a crime, I proudly plead guilty. >> >> We offered the meeting as a mechanism that might lead to a better choice of solutions for all of is, i.e. a win-win-win scenario. We hoped that we could find or craft out-of-the-box ways in which all of us could benefit more than what appears to be happening now. We thought that this community might actually appreciate attempts to improve what is now approaching a very polarized state of affairs. >> >> We approached participants involved in the sale for funding because we felt that it would be an opportunity for them to learn and discuss objections to the sale in a rational and non-accusatory environment. We believe that the current state of polarization discourages if not prevents rational discussion in a fully open meeting, and we hoped for new ideas from the meeting that could then be floated openly among a much sider group. Based upon their plans and their constraints, the sale participants felt that the proposed meeting did not fit into their idea how to proceed, and after considerable discussion including a lot of listening on their part, they declined. I think that they made a mistake, but they in turn believe that they are acting in their best interests. That is their right. >> >> If you think that the approach of having such a meeting is wrong, attack me, not them. I am the principal person responsible. If in the future you are interested in the truth, I suggest that you should find a more reliable source from which to get your information. >> >> George Sadowsky > >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>> > >> On Feb 19, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Thank you for sharing this document, George. >> >> Can you please expand upon why there was a desire for this meeting to happen in a closed environment? I thought one concern about the sale - expressed over and over again since November - was the whole lack of transparency and open consultation. > > Yes. > > Open meetings discourage frank and open discussion when the situation is polarized, and therefore discussants generally play to their constituencies who are watching. That results in arguments, not discussions. You can consider the posts on this subjects on this list to have been an open meeting of sorts, and the tendency for posters has been to posts strengthening their side of the argument rather than trying to work with the other side. > > There is a good case to be made for open meetings and for transparency much of the time, but not always. I judge mechanisms like that on the basis of the outcome of the process involved rather than on the tools used to get there. > > The proposed meeting was to be a group of colleagues, admittedly with dirreent and conflicting goals, to explore whether there were solutions that hadn't been considered that could make everyone better off. > > Closed meetings allow discussants to take chances with ideas, to know that their explorations into areas that are perhaps dogmatically held by their group won't be used to discredit them later. There are opposite sides represented, and the temptation in an open meeting to remember what the opposite side said and to use it in a negative way against them later often seems too good to resist. > >> >> >> You say that this meeting "wasn't secret", but when the first time that many of us are hearing about this proposal was in the media, it certainly seems like it was some sort of secret. > > Let's differentiate between 'secret,' locally informed and globally uninformed' and 'broadcast to a larger community .' There are gradations here in the extent to which information gets distributed. If I get a group of colleagues together to brainstorm informally, I see no need to tell a large number of people that I am doing it. That was the sense in which we proceeded.. Most of us do this informally much of the time, including our side conversations at larger meetings which are open, such as ICANN meetings. There's nothing wrong with it since we're not making decisions that affect people or institutions who are not there. > >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Regarding the sale of .ORG, in The Register today it was reported: >> >> "... word has reached us that Ethos Capital attempted to broker a secret peace treaty this coming weekend in Washington DC by inviting key individuals to a closed-door meeting with the goal of thrashing out an agreement all sides would be happy with. After Ethos insisted the meeting be kept brief, and a number of those opposed to the sale declined to attend, Ethos's funding for attendees' flights and accommodation was suddenly withdrawn, and the plan to hold a confab fell apart, we understand." >> >> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/ >> >> I asked on an internal ISOC mailing list if any additional information was available on this "secret peace treaty." For information purposes and because it is not otherwise accessible to those not unsubscribed to one particular ISOC list, I am attaching the document that was shared with me and which can be made public. >> >> It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics. >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ayden Férdeline >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 > 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 > Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky > george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Meeting plan for .org.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 71861 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Feb 19 18:52:20 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 18:52:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty' In-Reply-To: References: <8BE9CCC5-A146-45D7-B697-96948C45BA7D@gmail.com> Message-ID: > On Feb 19, 2020, at 6:34 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote: > > Dear George, > > Thank you for sharing this information. > > I did not feel it appropriate for me to forward your messages to this list, as only the document I shared had been made clear was public. But I appreciate you sharing the fuller exchange here for those who are interested in reviewing it. > > I understand that you instigated the proposed meeting. I also understand you are a current candidate for the ISOC Board of Trustees, and I believe you have previously served on the Board. And given funding was initially offered for this meeting by either Ethos or ISOC (I am not sure which), you clearly had some kind of behind-the-scenes negotiations with them in order to arrange this. So I think it is fair to say that ISOC was a party to this meeting - they agreed to send representatives, after all - and I have seen no evidence that they objected to the meeting being a closed one. Am I mistaken? Did ISOC want it to be open? I am a current candidate for the ISOC Board, and I have previously served on the Board. We had an initial understanding that the funds might be available and that they might participate. On that basis I continued to plan for the workshop. You are mistaken in saying that ISOC was 'a party to this meeting.' ISOC was an invitee, not a party to the planning of the meeting. I was the planner. I did not ask them how they felt about the meeting being an informal one and not 'open' in the sense that it was visible or audible in real time. ISOC expressed no preference and I did not ask them for one. > > It is still not clear to me how you (or who) chose people to invite to participate in this meeting. I thought I answered that earlier. Here is my reply: > Can this list be made public? How were the attendees selected? No, the list will not be made public. The meeting is obviously not happening and I don't see value in it. If I organize a group of my colleagues for informal brainstorming, we would announce it if we report results out to a larger community, and we had actually planned to do that in this case. The invitee group would have included people from the institutions involved in the sale, plus a group of 4-7 people who had indicated serious concern and opposition to the sale as evidenced in conversations on lists and in person in multiple locations. The selection was based upon my judgment and the judgment of the people I asked for advice and recommendations. We explicitly did not invite people who expressed themselves in rigid and dogmatic terms, indicating that they would move toward a polemic rather than a reasoned discussion. ```````````````` Ask yourself how you choose people with who you want to brainstorm an idea. They have to be intelligent, thoughtful, not wedded to a fixed set of ideas, creative, have knowledge about the issue and be involved in it, and not be jerks. Those seem like workable criteria, don't they? Regards, George > > Best wishes, > > Ayden Férdeline > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Thursday, 20 February 2020 00:26, George Sadowsky wrote: > >> Ayden, >> >> I think that it was is clearly unfair of you to post this document, of which I am the principal author, without also posting the context in which I presented it on the ISOC Policy list. I am posting that context here below, as well as the original copy of the document. You asked me a number of followup questions, and I responded to those, I am also posting that interchange below. >> >> In particular, you could have already read the first message below, and if you believed that I was reporting truthfully, you knew that I was the instigator of the proposed meeting, not anyone else. Yet you post below: >> >> "It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics." >> >> There is no truth to the implications in this statement and I believe that you know it. >> >> George Sadowsky >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> On 19/02/2020 15:22, George Sadowsky via InternetPolicy wrote: >>> All, >>> >>> I am intervening to provide the facts about the so-called "secret peace treaty" as Kieren so ineptly and inaccurately appeared to characterize it. >>> >>> I am the principal author of the attached document that describes what my colleague Kathy Kleiman and I were trying to accomplish in working toward the so-called "secret meeting." It wasn't secret and it wasn't a negotiation. It was an attempt to understand the best ways of salvaging what we could that was valuable from the damage being done during the current uproar about the proposed .org sale. The document speaks for itself. It's attached at the bottom of this message. Read it. >>> >>> We wanted to provide an opportunity to explore possible paths that would minimize damage to the ISOC/.org/NGO/NFP community when this issue was finally resolved, whether it was resolved one way or the other. We believe that there is an enormous amount of value of value in what ISOC and PIR have accomplished, both jointly and separately, and we want to preserve it and build upon it for a better Internet not only for this community but also for all Internet beneficiaries, current and future.. These are institutions that have contributed substantially to a better and more accessible Internet and to the well-being of our community. If that is a crime, I proudly plead guilty. >>> >>> We offered the meeting as a mechanism that might lead to a better choice of solutions for all of is, i.e. a win-win-win scenario. We hoped that we could find or craft out-of-the-box ways in which all of us could benefit more than what appears to be happening now. We thought that this community might actually appreciate attempts to improve what is now approaching a very polarized state of affairs. >>> >>> We approached participants involved in the sale for funding because we felt that it would be an opportunity for them to learn and discuss objections to the sale in a rational and non-accusatory environment. We believe that the current state of polarization discourages if not prevents rational discussion in a fully open meeting, and we hoped for new ideas from the meeting that could then be floated openly among a much sider group. Based upon their plans and their constraints, the sale participants felt that the proposed meeting did not fit into their idea how to proceed, and after considerable discussion including a lot of listening on their part, they declined. I think that they made a mistake, but they in turn believe that they are acting in their best interests. That is their right. >>> >>> If you think that the approach of having such a meeting is wrong, attack me, not them. I am the principal person responsible. If in the future you are interested in the truth, I suggest that you should find a more reliable source from which to get your information. >>> >>> George Sadowsky >> >> >> >> >>> >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >> >> >>> On Feb 19, 2020, at 4:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: >>> >>> Thank you for sharing this document, George. >>> >>> Can you please expand upon why there was a desire for this meeting to happen in a closed environment? I thought one concern about the sale - expressed over and over again since November - was the whole lack of transparency and open consultation. >> >> Yes. >> >> Open meetings discourage frank and open discussion when the situation is polarized, and therefore discussants generally play to their constituencies who are watching. That results in arguments, not discussions. You can consider the posts on this subjects on this list to have been an open meeting of sorts, and the tendency for posters has been to posts strengthening their side of the argument rather than trying to work with the other side. >> >> There is a good case to be made for open meetings and for transparency much of the time, but not always. I judge mechanisms like that on the basis of the outcome of the process involved rather than on the tools used to get there. >> >> The proposed meeting was to be a group of colleagues, admittedly with dirreent and conflicting goals, to explore whether there were solutions that hadn't been considered that could make everyone better off. >> >> Closed meetings allow discussants to take chances with ideas, to know that their explorations into areas that are perhaps dogmatically held by their group won't be used to discredit them later. There are opposite sides represented, and the temptation in an open meeting to remember what the opposite side said and to use it in a negative way against them later often seems too good to resist. >>> >>> >>> You say that this meeting "wasn't secret", but when the first time that many of us are hearing about this proposal was in the media, it certainly seems like it was some sort of secret. >> >> Let's differentiate between 'secret,' locally informed and globally uninformed' and 'broadcast to a larger community .' There are gradations here in the extent to which information gets distributed. If I get a group of colleagues together to brainstorm informally, I see no need to tell a large number of people that I am doing it. That was the sense in which we proceeded.. Most of us do this informally much of the time, including our side conversations at larger meetings which are open, such as ICANN meetings. There's nothing wrong with it since we're not making decisions that affect people or institutions who are not there. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >>> On Feb 19, 2020, at 5:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Regarding the sale of .ORG, in The Register today it was reported: >>> >>> "... word has reached us that Ethos Capital attempted to broker a secret peace treaty this coming weekend in Washington DC by inviting key individuals to a closed-door meeting with the goal of thrashing out an agreement all sides would be happy with. After Ethos insisted the meeting be kept brief, and a number of those opposed to the sale declined to attend, Ethos's funding for attendees' flights and accommodation was suddenly withdrawn, and the plan to hold a confab fell apart, we understand." >>> >>> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/19/internet_society_org_sale/ >>> >>> I asked on an internal ISOC mailing list if any additional information was available on this "secret peace treaty." For information purposes and because it is not otherwise accessible to those not unsubscribed to one particular ISOC list, I am attaching the document that was shared with me and which can be made public. >>> >>> It is incredible, in my view, that after three months of criticism for putting forward a secret, backroom deal to sell .ORG and sustained criticism over a lack of transparency about the sale, that ISOC would default here to a closed process in order to try to muzzle critics. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden Férdeline >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: > >>> List help: > >> >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 >> 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 >> Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky >> george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ George Sadowsky Residence tel: +1.301.968.4325 8300 Burdette Road, Apt B-472 Mobile: +1.202.415.1933 Bethesda MD 20817-2831 USA Skype: sadowsky george.sadowsky at gmail.com http://www.georgesadowsky.org/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Feb 19 23:30:03 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carlos Vera (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 23:30:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] .ORG sale - ISOC 'secret peace treaty' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: “Ask yourself how you choose people with who you want to brainstorm an idea. They have to be intelligent, thoughtful, not wedded to a fixed set of ideas, creative, have knowledge about the issue and be involved in it, and not be jerks. Those seem like workable criteria, don't they?” Wow.. I understand now why I never get an invitation! Perfect is nothing here! Carlos Vera > El 19 feb. 2020, a la(s) 18:52, George Sadowsky (via governance Mailing List) escribió: > > > Ask yourself how you choose people with who you want to brainstorm an idea. They have to be intelligent, thoughtful, not wedded to a fixed set of ideas, creative, have knowledge about the issue and be involved in it, and not be jerks. Those seem like workable criteria, don't they? From governance at lists.riseup.net Tue Feb 4 17:13:48 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 23:13:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Platform Values In-Reply-To: <20200203125630.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.3551405582.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> References: <20191116092352.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.ba09a6efed.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> <20200203125630.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.3551405582.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Thank you Luca. On Mon, 3 Feb 2020, 20:57 , wrote: > > > Dear all, > > in case you are interested, the Computer Law & Security Review (CLSR) > special issue on *Platform Values: Conflicting Rights, Artificial > Intelligence and Tax Avoidance* will be in Open Access until the end of > 2020 > https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/computer-law-and-security-review/special-issue/10L87CSMG55 > > Below, you will find the table of contents. I hope you will enjoy the > reading! > > Best regards > > Luca > > *Table of contents* > > - *Platform Value(s):A Multidimensional Framework for Online > Responsibility* > > Luca Belli & Nicolo Zingales > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303759 > > *Introductory Essays * > > - *Governing Digital Societies: Private Platforms, Public Values* > > José van Dijck > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303887 > > - *A Constitutional Moment: How We Might Reimagine Platform Governance* > > Nicolas Suzor > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303929 > > - *From the Telegraph to Twitter: The Case for the Digital Platform > Act* > > Harold Feld > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303899 > > * Conflicting Rights* > > - *The New City Regulators:** Platform and Public Values in Smart and > Sharing Cities* > > Sofia Ranchordas and Catalina Goanta > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303863 > > - *Sanctions on Digital Platforms: Balancing Proportionality in the > Modern Public Square* > > Engerrand Marique and Yseult Marique > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303838 > > - *A New Framework for Online Content Moderation * > > Ivar Hartmann > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303875 > > *Artificial Intelligence* > > - *Socio-Ethical Values and Legal Rules on Automated Platforms: The > Quest for a Symbiotic Relationship* > > Rolf H. Weber > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303917 > > - *Democratising Online Content Moderation: A Constitutional Framework* > > Giovanni De Gregorio > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303851 > > - *Platform Values and Democratic Elections: How Can the Law Regulate > Digital Disinformation?* > > Chris Marsden, Trisha Meyer and Ian Brown > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026736491930384X > > *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 > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303930# > > > - *E-commerce and Effective VAT/GST Enforcement: Can Online Platforms > Play a Valuable Role?* > > Luisa Scarcella > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303826 > > *Annex* > > - *Best Practices Platforms’ Implementation of the Right to an > Effective Remedy* > > Collectively elaborated by members of the IGF Coalition on Platform > Responsibility > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0267364919303905 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *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.* > > > > > > --------- Original Message --------- > Subject: [governance] Platform Values > From: "LB at lucabelli.net" > Date: 11/16/19 1:23 pm > To: "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , > "governance" > > > > > 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.* > > > --- To unsubscribe: List help: < > https://riseup.net/lists> > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Feb 20 00:27:52 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:27:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! Eager to hear what you all think here... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Feb 20 01:05:22 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Kossi Amessinou (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:05:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Cher tous. Ceci me paraît très important. Je salue cette décision de ICANN et j'invite les autres organisations de la communauté Internet à examiner l'éventualité de recourir à de telles options. En conséquence, les communautés locales d'internet doivent être encouragées à mettre en place des hub de regroupement des participants par ville pour éviter l'encombrement du trafic Internet en direction des plateformes de participation à distance. Cordialement. Le jeu. 20 févr. 2020 à 06:28, Arsène Tungali a écrit : > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en > > Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! > > Eager to hear what you all think here... > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Feb 20 02:19:58 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 07:19:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. You can check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital policy context here: https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview Best, Jacob On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, wrote: > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en > > Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! > > Eager to hear what you all think here... > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From woody at pch.net Thu Feb 20 04:25:00 2020 From: woody at pch.net (Bill Woodcock) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:25:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7EEB317A-18C4-4AAA-9B57-F4998588A48C@pch.net> My initial reaction was negative, but the more I consider it, the more I like it. Beyond the obvious benefits to health, the environment, and the economy, this democratized the process. It makes it much more difficult for a handful of wealthy companies to monopolize the decision-making processes by putting a $100k/year travel-expense wall in front of everyone else. All of the hallway side-meetings, which are always touted as the big benefit of the in-person meetings, benefit insiders disproportionately. Hypothetically, that too could be democratized with randomized introductions and chat sessions. I think it will be interesting. -Bill > On Feb 20, 2020, at 08:21, Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > >  > Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. > > Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. You can check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital policy context here: https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview > > Best, > Jacob > >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, wrote: >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en >> >> Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! >> >> Eager to hear what you all think here... >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Thu Feb 20 04:40:49 2020 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 10:40:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: <7EEB317A-18C4-4AAA-9B57-F4998588A48C@pch.net> References: <7EEB317A-18C4-4AAA-9B57-F4998588A48C@pch.net> Message-ID: +1 on everything Bill said. I hope this meeting can be a template for future policy making. Best, Niels On 2/20/20 10:25 AM, Bill Woodcock wrote: > My initial reaction was negative, but the more I consider it, the more I like it.  > > Beyond the obvious benefits to health, the environment, and the economy, this democratized the process. It makes it much more difficult for a handful of wealthy companies to monopolize the decision-making processes by putting a $100k/year travel-expense wall in front of everyone else.  > > All of the hallway side-meetings, which are always touted as the big benefit of the in-person meetings, benefit insiders disproportionately.  Hypothetically, that too could be democratized with randomized introductions and chat sessions.  > > I think it will be interesting.  >      >                 -Bill > > >> On Feb 20, 2020, at 08:21, Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List) wrote: >> >>  >> Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. >> >> Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. You can check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital policy context here: https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview >> >> Best, >> Jacob >> >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, > wrote: >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en >> >> Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! >> >> Eager to hear what you all think here... >> --- >> To unsubscribe: > >> List help: >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: > > --- > 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 Feb 20 04:47:42 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Nnenna Nwakanma (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 09:47:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] 100% Remote meetings Message-ID: Hello here I have registered for the ICANN67 meetings, following ICANN's announcement that the Cancun meetings will be 100% remote. https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en Beyond Cancun, I think this is a new day for remote participation and needs us to pay very close attention. This new thread is to ask: 1. What does it take to organise such a meeting? 2. Will this increase participation? 3. What do we gain / what do we lose? 4. What trade off is there between what is gained and what is lost? Anyone else wants to watch the space, chronicle, document and share? If yes.. I am happy to join forces. Best regards Nnenna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dvbirve at yandex.ru Thu Feb 20 04:51:04 2020 From: dvbirve at yandex.ru (Shcherbovich Andrey) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:51:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From iza at anr.org Thu Feb 20 05:30:15 2020 From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 19:30:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: I could agree a lot with what Bill wrote here, but at the same time the industry and corporate lobbyists of the Domain name industry will make sure that they will be as effective in the virtual processes as the face-to-face one. Izumi 2020年2月20日(木) 18:51 Shcherbovich Andrey : > I suppose that face-to-face meetings are vitally important for the IG > community. Virtual meetings are useful ONLY in extreme circumstances. > > 20.02.2020, 10:20, "Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List)" < > governance at lists.riseup.net>: > > Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will > not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test > for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG > discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. > > Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into > global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. You can > check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital > policy context here: > https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview > > Best, > Jacob > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, > wrote: > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en > > Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! > > Eager to hear what you all think here... > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > , > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > > Sincerely, > Dr. Andrey A. Shcherbovich > Associate Professor, > Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, > National Research University > Higher School of Economics > > > С уважением, > Щербович Андрей Андреевич, > к.ю.н., доцент кафедры конституционного > и административного права > > --- > 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 governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Feb 20 11:33:42 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:03:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: The meetings team, ICANN staff and Community could see this as a rare opportunity to test innovative ways of clustering topics for discussion. This meeting could be more of cross community discussions, arrayed in a sequence rather than in overlapping parallel sessions in multiple rooms - at least for two out of 7 days. If more participants expected for this online meeting, than there could also be a shift away from acronyms and DNS / Community terminology. If the online meeting attracts new participants not usually seen during regular ICANN meetings, there might be fresh insights and fresh perspectives, some of the discussion themes could be suitably drawn. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 16:00 Izumi AIZU wrote: > I could agree a lot with what Bill wrote here, but at the same time the > industry and corporate lobbyists of the Domain name industry will make sure > that they will be as effective in the virtual processes as the face-to-face > one. > > Izumi > > 2020年2月20日(木) 18:51 Shcherbovich Andrey : > >> I suppose that face-to-face meetings are vitally important for the IG >> community. Virtual meetings are useful ONLY in extreme circumstances. >> >> 20.02.2020, 10:20, "Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List)" < >> governance at lists.riseup.net>: >> >> Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will >> not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test >> for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG >> discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. >> >> Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into >> global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. You can >> check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital >> policy context here: >> https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview >> >> Best, >> Jacob >> >> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, >> wrote: >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en >> >> Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! >> >> Eager to hear what you all think here... >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> , >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> Dr. Andrey A. Shcherbovich >> Associate Professor, >> Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, >> National Research University >> Higher School of Economics >> >> >> С уважением, >> Щербович Андрей Андреевич, >> к.ю.н., доцент кафедры конституционного >> и административного права >> >> --- >> 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 governance at lists.riseup.net Thu Feb 20 14:38:12 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 21:38:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: A full ICANN meeting happening online is something I look forward to, so let's see how it goes. I am eager to see how the agenda will look like. Also, time differences and how this will be handled in a unified agenda. Also, how are the fellowship/nextgen programs going to be handled? Most of these participants are not used to using Zoom or other remote participation tools. This is a challenge which is worth considering as it might not be the last one! On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 6:35 PM sivasubramanian muthusamy < 6.internet at gmail.com> wrote: > The meetings team, ICANN staff and Community could see this as a rare > opportunity to test innovative ways of clustering topics for discussion. > This meeting could be more of cross community discussions, arrayed in a > sequence rather than in overlapping parallel sessions in multiple rooms - > at least for two out of 7 days. If more participants expected for this > online meeting, than there could also be a shift away from acronyms and > DNS / Community terminology. If the online meeting attracts new > participants not usually seen during regular ICANN meetings, there might be > fresh insights and fresh perspectives, some of the discussion themes could > be suitably drawn. > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 16:00 Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> I could agree a lot with what Bill wrote here, but at the same time the >> industry and corporate lobbyists of the Domain name industry will make sure >> that they will be as effective in the virtual processes as the face-to-face >> one. >> >> Izumi >> >> 2020年2月20日(木) 18:51 Shcherbovich Andrey : >> >>> I suppose that face-to-face meetings are vitally important for the IG >>> community. Virtual meetings are useful ONLY in extreme circumstances. >>> >>> 20.02.2020, 10:20, "Jacob Odame-Baiden (via governance Mailing List)" < >>> governance at lists.riseup.net>: >>> >>> Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will >>> not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this will serve as a huge test >>> for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG >>> discussions. Maybe this will give a more focused turnaround for that topic. >>> >>> Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded >>> into global digital policy discussions and we are all seeing the impact. >>> You can check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in >>> digital policy context here: >>> https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview >>> >>> Best, >>> Jacob >>> >>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, >>> wrote: >>> >>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en >>> >>> Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! >>> >>> Eager to hear what you all think here... >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> , >>> >>> --- >>> To unsubscribe: >>> List help: >>> >>> >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> Dr. Andrey A. Shcherbovich >>> Associate Professor, >>> Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, >>> National Research University >>> Higher School of Economics >>> >>> >>> С уважением, >>> Щербович Андрей Андреевич, >>> к.ю.н., доцент кафедры конституционного >>> и административного права >>> >>> --- >>> 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 governance at lists.riseup.net Wed Feb 5 05:23:12 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 12:23:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGF] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks: Submit Inputs by 6 February In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Please note the deadline is Feb 6. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: IGF Secretariat Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:14:42 +0000 Subject: [IGF] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks: Submit Inputs by 6 February To: "info at intgovforum.org" Dear Stakeholders, You are kindly invited to respond to the IGF 2020 Call for Validation of Thematic Tracks and advise if you agree with the proposed thematic structure for the 15th IGF in Poland: * Track one: Data * Track two: Inclusion * Track three: Trust How could we include in the thematic framework additional themes: Environmental Sustainability/Climate Change and ‎Digital Economy? What are the most important issues, subthemes and/or policy questions or ‎solutions? Submit your input by 6 February 2020 through this form: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-call-for-validation-of-thematic-tracks Best regards, IGF Secretariat ________________________________ The Secretariat intends to send out informational emails regarding dates and events on the IGF Calendar. If you prefer not to receive these emails, please click on the following link https://www.intgovforum.org/opt-out.php to unsubscribe your email address from the mailing list. -- ------------------------ **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 anriette at apc.org Thu Feb 20 16:07:16 2020 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 23:07:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] APCNews #306 - 20 February 2020 - The internet and human rights, spotlight on community networks and more In-Reply-To: <20200220203510.99F4C10EC5801@lists.apcwomen.org> References: <20200220203510.99F4C10EC5801@lists.apcwomen.org> Message-ID: <22ec8fa8-6111-da89-cd57-66930afd8fff@apc.org>           #306 — 20 february 2020   APCNEWS: THE NEWS SERVICE ON Icts for SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT                 Latin America in a Glimpse: reporte anual sobre tecnología y derechos humanos Derechos Digitales presenta una nueva edición de su reporte anual sobre tecnología y derechos humanos: los aspectos más relevantes, las amenazas emergentes, las respuestas de las políticas públicas y el rol de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil.   APC statement at the UN Open-ended Working Group on International Cybersecurity APC welcomes this opportunity to address the United Nations Open-ended Working Group and to participate in this informal dialogue with stakeholders. We urge a rights-based and inclusive approach to understanding threats in cyberspace.   Inside the Digital Society: The climate for digital development Predicting the future’s hard but there are two global trends that seem fairly certain. Digitalisation and climate change are likely to shape our future more than anything else that we can see at present. How are they linked? Or, to put it another way, why aren’t they linked more?         HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE AGE OF PLATFORMS: "THE CALL FOR ALTERNATIVES IS GROWING"         “Human Rights in the Age of Platforms”, published by the MIT Press, examines the human rights implications of today's platform society. APCNews interviewed Rikke Frank Jørgensen, editor of the publication, who provided insight on the reflections and recommendations captured in this book.         SPOTLIGHT ON COMMUNITY NETWORKS               Nodes that bond: Meet the women building community networks in rural Brazil “Nodes That Bond” is a video that shows the journey of the women in the rural community of Souzas, Brazil, who share a curiosity and willingness to learn about technology, through familiar ways of meeting.   redes comunitarias más allá del FGI: “Queremos que internet vuelva a acercarse a aquello que soñamos” ¿Cómo promover una comunicación responsable y efectiva en torno al auge de las redes comunitarias en regiones de África, Latinoamérica o Asia?     Telecommunications Reclaimed: A hands-on guide to networking communities This book is a guide on how to build a community network, a shared local telecommunications infrastructure, managed as a commons, to access the internet and other digital communications services.     APC.ORG — FACEBOOK.COM/APCNEWS — TWITTER.COM/APC_NEWS You are receiving this newsletter because you’ve signed up to receive updates from APC. If you want to unsubscribe, click here . Invite others to subscribe to this newsletter here . If you want more information about how we protect your privacy, see our privacy policy  or write to privacy at apc.org. If the newsletter is not displayed properly, please view this email in your browser here . APCNews is produced by APC , a worldwide network supporting the use of the internet and ICTs for social justice and sustainable development since 1990. Association for Progressive Communications (APC) / Second Avenue / Melville, South Africa Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julf at julf.com Thu Feb 20 16:11:14 2020 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2020 22:11:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> Message-ID: <52678947-7652-62e8-9f87-8f180a16855e@julf.com> On 20-02-2020 20:38, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > Also, how are the fellowship/nextgen programs going to be handled? Most > of these participants are not used to using Zoom or other remote > participation tools. I guess it is a great chance to learn the most important tools for participating in ICANN policy work. Julf From joly at punkcast.com Fri Feb 21 04:19:41 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 04:19:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Toomas Hendrik Ilves + 2020 Niejelow Rodin Global Digital Futures Forum Message-ID: Toomas Hendrik Ilves was the President of Estonia fro, 2006 to 2016. From Wikipedia "*In 2013 he chaired the High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms convened by ICANN . From 2014 to 2015 Ilves was the co-chair of the advisory panel of the World Bank 's World Development Report 2016 "Digital Dividends" and was also the chair of World Economic Forum 's Global Agenda Council on Cyber Security beginning in June 2014. Beginning in 2016, Ilves has been co-chairing The World Economic Forum working group '**The Global Futures Council on Blockchain Technology'." *Should be an interesting fireside chat with Dean Janow. The Global Digital Futures Forum is somewhat pared down in length from previous years, but not in strength. High-level, as always. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Friday February 21 2020 the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and Columbia World Projects present a double event. First, at 1pm EST (18:00 UTC) former Estonia President Toomas Hendrik Ilves will deliver the Georg" [image: livestream] Today, *Friday February 21 2020* the *Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs * (SIPA) and *Columbia World Projects * present a double event. First, at *1pm EST* (18:00 UTC) former Estonia President *Toomas Hendrik Ilves* will deliver the *George W. Ball Lecture * in the form of a discussion with SIPA *Dean Merit E. Janow*. This will be directly followed at *2:30pm EST* (19:30 UTC) by the *Niejelow Rodin Global Digital Futures Forum *. The forum, now in its sixth year, brings together leading scholars from across Columbia University, CEOs, senior policy makers, entrepreneurs, legal and policy experts, amongst others to discuss the broad challenges and opportunities created by the wide-ranging digital transformations occurring in the world today. The theme of this year’s Forum is *Cybersecurity, the Digital State, and Democratic Governance*. Both events will be webcast live via a partnership with the* Internet Society New York Chapter *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/gdf20 * *SCHEDULE (EST = UTC-5):* *1:00pm-2:15pm | George W. Ball Lecture* *2:30pm-4:00pm | Pursuing Digital and Cyber Peace* *4:00pm-4:30pm | Data Flows and Transparency* *4:30pm-6:00pm | Digital Identity: A Development Agenda* *AGENDA: http://bit.ly/3bJpLPa * *TWITTER: @IlvesToomas * *#SIPADigitalFutures * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11803/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Fri Feb 21 04:51:12 2020 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 02:51:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks Message-ID: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear all, I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a very positive impact on the IGF and its work. The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in Brazil and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The Community Network Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, as simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin America here https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on how to create them. This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another* piece of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, they can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies. My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! All the best Luca *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a selection below: - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe report on the subject https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in this expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @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 Fri Feb 21 04:57:10 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Michael J. Oghia" (via governance Mailing List) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:57:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Dear Luca, all: Congratulations to you and the DC3! You're absolutely right in your assessment, and also demonstrates the impact a DC can have. This is very inspiring for our work as well, and I encourage even greater collaboration and bridge building between our initiatives wherever possible. Best, -Michael On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:52 AM wrote: > > Dear all, > I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a > very positive impact on the IGF and its work. > The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially > recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in Brazil > and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The Community Network > Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community > Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. > https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias > This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising > the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, as > simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin America here > https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ > ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology > providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on how > to create them. > This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another* piece > of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when > people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, they > can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies. > My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to > development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the IGF > Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! > All the best > Luca > > *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a > selection below: > - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in > the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP > https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf > - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and > Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe report on > the subject > https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false > The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE > Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and > responsibilities of internet intermediaries > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 > - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in this > expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated the > elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the Committee of > Ministers on network neutrality > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br > > t: @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. > _______________________________________________ > DC mailing list > DC at intgovforum.org > To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Fri Feb 21 05:03:12 2020 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 10:03:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: +1 to Michael and others. Luca – great work and value for the DC 😊 The last 4 years have been an amazing collaborative effort at IGFs and beyond. Looking forward to another 4 years of progress and change to bring more access around the world to the unconnected! Be well! Jane Senior Vice President, Internet Growth Internet Society +1.202.247.8429 www.internetsociety.org From: on behalf of "Michael J. Oghia" Reply-To: "mike.oghia at gmail.com" Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM To: Luca Belli Cc: "dc at intgovforum.org" , "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , governance Subject: Re: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks Dear Luca, all: Congratulations to you and the DC3! You're absolutely right in your assessment, and also demonstrates the impact a DC can have. This is very inspiring for our work as well, and I encourage even greater collaboration and bridge building between our initiatives wherever possible. Best, -Michael On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:52 AM > wrote: Dear all, I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a very positive impact on the IGF and its work. The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in Brazil and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The Community Network Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, as simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin America here https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on how to create them. This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another* piece of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, they can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies. My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! All the best Luca *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a selection below: - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe report on the subject https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in this expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @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. _______________________________________________ DC mailing list DC at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Fri Feb 21 05:11:05 2020 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:11:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: <52678947-7652-62e8-9f87-8f180a16855e@julf.com> References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> <52678947-7652-62e8-9f87-8f180a16855e@julf.com> Message-ID: I'm really excited by the acceptance and enthusiasm shown for this move by discussants here. Notwithstanding the difficulties people in different ends are having with connectivity and using some online tools in the meantime, the Internet have interesting ROI capabilities that needs to be tested and proved. Enabling larger and more inclusive meetings is one. Arsene: > Also, how are the fellowship/nextgen programs going to be handled? Most > of these participants are not used to using Zoom or other remote > participation tools. Julf: I guess it is a great chance to learn the most important tools for participating in ICANN policy work. Yes, Julf. I think fellowship programs were necessitated by the reality that some potential leaders/change makers would be unable to contribute to and learn from significant discussions because of the monetary costs involved in attending onsite meetings and so they need to be sponsored. *If people will need to be helped to afford better connectivity and to learn to use online meeting tools, that will be worth investing in, and I think it's cost effective.* Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 10:11 PM Johan Helsingius wrote: > On 20-02-2020 20:38, Arsène Tungali (via governance Mailing List) wrote: > > > Also, how are the fellowship/nextgen programs going to be handled? Most > > of these participants are not used to using Zoom or other remote > > participation tools. > > I guess it is a great chance to learn the most important tools for > participating in ICANN policy work. > > Julf > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Fri Feb 21 05:37:14 2020 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:37:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: Really great news, Luca. 👏 "IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies." That's the essence of the forum. If countries work with outputs of such important, capital-intensive meetings, why would anyone describe the meetings as "mere talking shop"? Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:03 AM Jane Coffin wrote: > +1 to Michael and others. > > > > Luca – great work and value for the DC 😊 > > The last 4 years have been an amazing collaborative effort at IGFs and > beyond. > > Looking forward to another 4 years of progress and change to bring more > access around the world to the unconnected! > > > > Be well! > > > > Jane > > > > Senior Vice President, Internet Growth > > Internet Society > > +1.202.247.8429 > > www.internetsociety.org > > > > > > *From: * on behalf of "Michael J. > Oghia" > *Reply-To: *"mike.oghia at gmail.com" > *Date: *Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM > *To: *Luca Belli > *Cc: *"dc at intgovforum.org" , " > GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , > governance > *Subject: *Re: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and > Community Networks > > > > Dear Luca, all: > > > > Congratulations to you and the DC3! You're absolutely right in your > assessment, and also demonstrates the impact a DC can have. This is very > inspiring for our work as well, and I encourage even greater collaboration > and bridge building between our initiatives wherever possible. > > > Best, > -Michael > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:52 AM wrote: > > > Dear all, > I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a > very positive impact on the IGF and its work. > The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially > recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in Brazil > and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The Community Network > Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community > Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. > https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias > This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising > the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, as > simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin America here > https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ > ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology > providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on how > to create them. > This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another* piece > of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when > people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, they > can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies. > My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to > development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the IGF > Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! > All the best > Luca > > *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a > selection below: > - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in > the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP > https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf > - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and > Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe report on > the subject > https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false > The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE > Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and > responsibilities of internet intermediaries > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 > - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in this > expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated the > elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the Committee of > Ministers on network neutrality > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br > > t: @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. > _______________________________________________ > DC mailing list > DC at intgovforum.org > To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng Fri Feb 21 06:12:03 2020 From: udochukwu.njoku at unn.edu.ng (=?UTF-8?B?Q2hyaXMgUHJpbmNlIFVkb2NodWt3dSBOauG7jWvhu6U=?=) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:12:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Society reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This thing is getting complex and more confusing. Isn't it? Chris Prince Udochukwu *Njọkụ*, Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 12:03 AM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > There is not a whole lot of substance in this response from ISOC (in my > opinion). > > That being said, ICANN has recently sent a letter to ISOC that raises a > number of very important questions that challenge much of the narrative > advanced in ISOC's letter to us. > > That letter can be found here: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-camarillo-13feb20-en.pdf > > I also encourage the reading of this letter from Jones Day, ICANN's > counsel, to Ethos Capital, disputing a number of Ethos Capital's talking > points: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/levee-to-boglivi-13feb20-en.pdf > > In addition, as *The Register* has noted, it is not Ethos Capital itself > who will own the Public Interest Registry if the sale concludes. That will > be another shell company, Purpose Domains Direct LLC, of which we know > nothing about, not even its directors. So the assurances of Ethos Capital > mean very little if they are not in direct charge of Purpose Domains Direct > LLC. > > Ayden Férdeline > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, 7 February 2020 20:20, Bruna Martins dos Santos < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear IGC, > > I would like to share with you ISOCs reply to the December 19th Letter > from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. > > Important to mention that the Co-Cos and the tech team are working on > publishing our Letter to ISOC on our website and they are also interested > in doing the same, for transparency purposes. > > best regards, > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > IGC Co-Coordinator > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From laura at article19.org Fri Feb 21 08:23:01 2020 From: laura at article19.org (Laura Tresca) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 13:23:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <1613541583.1184886.1582291381227.JavaMail.zimbra@article19.org> And I risk to say that this also can be considered an achievement of Frida Awards by Lacnic. By the end of last year, we hold several meetings with Anatel with this agenda - the meetings were supported by Frida grant. :) Laura Conde Tresca ARTIGO 19 Defendendo liberdade de expressão e informação T [ callto:+55 11 3057-0042 | +55 11 3057-0042 ] | 3057 0071 W [ http://www.artigo19.org/ | artigo19.org ] Fb [ https://www.facebook.com/artigo19brasil?fref=ts | facebook.com/artigo19brasil ] De: "Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ" Para: "Jane Coffin" Cc: "mike oghia" , "Luca Belli" , dc at intgovforum.org, "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , "governance" Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 21 de fevereiro de 2020 7:37:14 Assunto: Re: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks Really great news, Luca. \uD83D\uDC4F "IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies." T hat's the essence of the forum. If countries work with outputs of such important, capital-intensive meetings, why would anyone describe the meetings as " mere talking shop "? Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ , Ph.D. Computer Communications Centre University of Nigeria, Nsukka 410001 @DrCPUNjoku We mustn't remain with old ways of doing things, especially if they're not yielding optimum results. On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:03 AM Jane Coffin < [ mailto:coffin at isoc.org | coffin at isoc.org ] > wrote: +1 to Michael and others. Luca – great work and value for the DC \uD83D\uDE0A The last 4 years have been an amazing collaborative effort at IGFs and beyond. Looking forward to another 4 years of progress and change to bring more access around the world to the unconnected! Be well! Jane Senior Vice President, Internet Growth Internet Society +1.202.247.8429 [ http://www.internetsociety.org/ | www.internetsociety.org ] From: < [ mailto:governance-request at lists.riseup.net | governance-request at lists.riseup.net ] > on behalf of "Michael J. Oghia" < [ mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net | governance at lists.riseup.net ] > Reply-To: " [ mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com | mike.oghia at gmail.com ] " < [ mailto:mike.oghia at gmail.com | mike.oghia at gmail.com ] > Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:58 AM To: Luca Belli < [ mailto:LB at lucabelli.net | LB at lucabelli.net ] > Cc: " [ mailto:dc at intgovforum.org | dc at intgovforum.org ] " < [ mailto:dc at intgovforum.org | dc at intgovforum.org ] >, " [ mailto:GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU | GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ] " < [ mailto:GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU | GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU ] >, governance < [ mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net | governance at lists.riseup.net ] > Subject: Re: [governance] [DC] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks Dear Luca, all: Congratulations to you and the DC3! You're absolutely right in your assessment, and also demonstrates the impact a DC can have. This is very inspiring for our work as well, and I encourage even greater collaboration and bridge building between our initiatives wherever possible. Best, -Michael On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:52 AM < [ mailto:LB at lucabelli.net | LB at lucabelli.net ] > wrote: BQ_BEGIN Dear all, I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a very positive impact on the IGF and its work. The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in Brazil and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The Community Network Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. [ https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias | https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias ] This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, as simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin America here [ https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ | https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ ] ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on how to create them. This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another* piece of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, they can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on digital policies. My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! All the best Luca *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a selection below: - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP [ https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf | https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf ] - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe report on the subject [ https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false | https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false ] The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries [ https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 | https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 ] - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in this expert report ( [ https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca | https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca ] )that originated the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the Committee of Ministers on network neutrality [ https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 | https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [ http://www.cyberbrics.info/ | www.cyberbrics.info ] | www.cpdp.lat | [ http://www.internet-governance.fgv.br/ | www.internet-governance.fgv.br ] t: @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. _______________________________________________ DC mailing list [ mailto:DC at intgovforum.org | DC at intgovforum.org ] To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to [ http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org | http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/dc_intgovforum.org ] --- To unsubscribe: List help: < [ https://riseup.net/lists | https://riseup.net/lists ] > BQ_END --- To unsubscribe: List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: LOGO SEM FUNDO.png Type: image/png Size: 23332 bytes Desc: not available URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Feb 7 14:20:10 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 17:20:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Society reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. Message-ID: Dear IGC, I would like to share with you ISOCs reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. Important to mention that the Co-Cos and the tech team are working on publishing our Letter to ISOC on our website and they are also interested in doing the same, for transparency purposes. best regards, -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * IGC Co-Coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC-reply-ajs-gc-20200129-2 (1).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 61249 bytes Desc: not available URL: From julf at julf.com Fri Feb 21 10:20:08 2020 From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 16:20:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: <32370841582192264@iva3-67f911cb3a01.qloud-c.yandex.net> <52678947-7652-62e8-9f87-8f180a16855e@julf.com> Message-ID: On 21-02-2020 11:11, Chris Prince Udochukwu Njọkụ wrote: > *If people will need to be helped to afford better connectivity and to > learn to use online meeting tools, that will be worth investing in, and > I think it's cost effective.* Indeed. That seems to go even for some of the more experienced participants. Julf From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Feb 21 10:45:51 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Wisdom Donkor (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:45:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Internet Society reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks so much for this information. *WISDOM DONKOR* President & CEO Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra | www.aodirf.org / www.afrigeocon.org Tel: +233 20 812 8851 Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk __________________________________________________ Specialization: E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Domain Name Systems, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:03 PM Ayden Férdeline wrote: > There is not a whole lot of substance in this response from ISOC (in my > opinion). > > That being said, ICANN has recently sent a letter to ISOC that raises a > number of very important questions that challenge much of the narrative > advanced in ISOC's letter to us. > > That letter can be found here: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/botterman-to-camarillo-13feb20-en.pdf > > I also encourage the reading of this letter from Jones Day, ICANN's > counsel, to Ethos Capital, disputing a number of Ethos Capital's talking > points: > > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/levee-to-boglivi-13feb20-en.pdf > > In addition, as *The Register* has noted, it is not Ethos Capital itself > who will own the Public Interest Registry if the sale concludes. That will > be another shell company, Purpose Domains Direct LLC, of which we know > nothing about, not even its directors. So the assurances of Ethos Capital > mean very little if they are not in direct charge of Purpose Domains Direct > LLC. > > Ayden Férdeline > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > On Friday, 7 February 2020 20:20, Bruna Martins dos Santos < > governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > > Dear IGC, > > I would like to share with you ISOCs reply to the December 19th Letter > from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. > > Important to mention that the Co-Cos and the tech team are working on > publishing our Letter to ISOC on our website and they are also interested > in doing the same, for transparency purposes. > > best regards, > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > IGC Co-Coordinator > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Feb 21 10:48:01 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:48:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] New Announcement on the PIR proposed Sale Message-ID: Dear all, Internet Society shared this morning, on their newsletter, the following announcement regarding the PIR Sale, also posted on https://www.keypointsabout.org/pressrelease ***************** Announcement: Ethos Capital Announces Accountability Initiatives to Secure a Strong Future for .ORG *Ethos Voluntarily Initiates Legally-Binding Public Interest Commitments that Enforce Price Limits on .ORG and Codify Strong Safeguards Against Censorship of Free Expression and Use of Personal Data* *Establishes a $10 Million Community Enablement Fund to Support the .ORG Community* *Releases .ORG Stewardship Council Charter* *February 21, 2020 – Boston, MA –* Ethos Capital (“Ethos”) today announced several key initiatives that strengthen and reinforce the company’s commitments to the .ORG community as part of its acquisition of Public Interest Registry (“PIR”). These initiatives are legally-binding measures that enforce price limits, safeguard against censorship and protect personal data through an amendment to PIR’s Registry Agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) that allows PIR to operate the .ORG top-level domain. This amendment is codified in what is known as a Public Interest Commitment (“PIC”). These legally-binding commitments cannot be unilaterally modified by PIR and will apply to .ORG regardless of who operates .ORG. In connection with these initiatives, PIR has granted ICANN an additional extension to March 20, 2020 to review PIR's submissions. PIR will continue to work collaboratively with ICANN to address any potential outstanding questions by this date. *PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITMENT (PIC)* In response to the .ORG community’s requests for increased clarity around Ethos’ commitments, Ethos has voluntarily proposed to add an amendment to PIR’s .ORG Registry Agreement with ICANN in the form of a PIC. Upon completion of the acquisition, the PIC will become a legally binding amendment to the current Registry Agreement. It will be enforceable both by ICANN through its compliance department and by members of the community through ICANN’s Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (“PICDRP”). “We have been listening closely to stakeholder feedback – both positive and negative – and have been working diligently to address these specific issues head on,” said Erik Brooks, Founder & CEO of Ethos Capital. “A primary request we heard from the .ORG community was for strong enforceability measures to ensure that Ethos would be held accountable to its promises. We are taking these actions to show that we stand firmly behind the commitments we’ve made – and most importantly – behind the registrants and users who have made .ORG the incredible domain it is today.” This Amendment to include the PIC will include the following legally-binding contractual provisions: 1. *Affordability of .ORG Domain Names: *Fees charged to registrars for initial or renewal registration of a .ORG domain name will not increase by more than 10% per year on average for eight years from the start of the current Registry Agreement, under a precise formula that does not permit front-loading of those price increases. Through this commitment, .ORG will become one of the only TLDs to have a price restriction and it will remain one of the most affordable domains in the world. 2. *ORG Stewardship Council*: The .ORG Stewardship Council (the “Council”) will have authority to provide independent advice on and a binding right to veto modifications proposed by PIR to PIR’s policies regarding (1) censorship and freedom of expression and (2) use of .ORG registrant and user data. The Council will have specific authority to veto any proposals or modifications that would limit the Council’s oversight in these areas. No employee, director or member of PIR shall serve on the Council. 3. *Community Enablement Fund*: PIR will establish a Community Enablement Fund to provide support for initiatives benefitting .ORG registrants and approved by the Council. The commission, charter, and funding of the Community Enablement Fund will be established by PIR’s Board with input from the Council. The Council will be responsible for providing recommendations and advice regarding the Community Enablement Fund. Appropriations from the Community Enablement Fund will be subject to approval of the PIR Board. It is anticipated that PIR will contribute $10 million to the Community Enablement Fund over the remaining life of the current Registry Agreement. 4. *Annual Public Report*: PIR will produce and publish annually a report that assesses PIR’s compliance with the PIC commitments and the ways in which PIR pursued activities for the benefit of the registrants of .ORG domain names during the preceding year. *.ORG STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL CHARTER* In addition to clarifying the role of the .ORG Stewardship Council in the PIC, Ethos has publicly released the .ORG Stewardship Council Charter (the “Charter”) outlining the principles and protocols that will govern the administration and operation of the Council. Key components of the Charter are as follows: - The Council will have the power to veto changes to .ORG policies in two essential areas, consistent with the values of the .ORG community and with PIR’s Anti-Abuse Policy: (1) appropriate limitations and safeguards against censorship of free expression in the .ORG domain name space; and (2) appropriate limitations and safeguards regarding use or disclosure of registration data or other personal data of .ORG domain name registrants and users. The Council will also have authority to veto any changes to the .ORG Stewardship Council Charter that would diminish the Council’s rights with respect to policies in these two areas. - The Council will provide the PIR Board with independent strategic advice and recommendations to help guide PIR in considering and balancing the best interests of all .ORG stakeholders, in order to help the PIR Board assess how it can promote values that serve the mission-driven goals of the .ORG community. - The Council will provide recommendations and advice regarding the Community Enablement Fund established by PIR to provide support for initiatives benefitting .ORG registrants that are consistent with the mission and values of the .ORG community. The full text of the PIC and the Charter, which includes additional information about the Council’s duties and responsibilities and details its policies and procedures, may be viewed at www.keypointsabout.org/accountability. *PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY’S FUTURE* The acquisition will ensure a bright future for PIR and .ORG registrants and users. Ethos’ investment in PIR will deliver significant benefits to the .ORG community, including investment in value-added products and services that will strengthen and grow the .ORG brand. PIR will conduct market studies and surveys to help identify the products and services that can further build the online presence of mission-driven organizations around the world. “PIR’s mission has always been to serve the .ORG community, and this agreement with ICANN ensures that we will continue to do just that,” said Jon Nevett, CEO of Public Interest Registry. “The binding and enforceable commitments announced by Ethos today ensure protections that support Ethos’ pledge to be a responsible partner to PIR. On behalf of the entire team at PIR, we could not be more thrilled to be working with Erik, Nora and the Ethos team. It’s clear that they believe in our mission and support the values we’ve worked so hard to establish over the past 17 years. We hope to complete this transaction in the near future so that we can move forward on building an even stronger .ORG together.” *THE INTERNET SOCIETY’S FUTURE* The transaction will allow the Internet Society to do more for the Internet. The Internet Society will invest the proceeds from the transaction and use the resulting investment income to power the organization’s mission of an Internet that is open, globally-connected, trustworthy and secure. The sustainable funding offered by the investments will ensure the Internet Society community efforts to build, promote, and defend the Internet can continue, and that these efforts reach far and wide. By decoupling from its reliance on revenue from the domain name industry, the Internet Society will also achieve a greater degree of independence, allowing it to be a more vocal champion for an open and inclusive Internet that is a force for good for everyone. “With this announcement, Ethos shows that it has been listening to the questions some have raised. Ethos has responded by embedding its commitments on pricing, censorship and data use policies in a legally-binding contract, and giving ICANN and the community the ability to hold Ethos to its commitments. They listened, and responded,” said Andrew Sullivan, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “With this in place, and as the Internet Society and PIR advance their missions, the Internet will become stronger, more secure, and more accessible.” *.ORG COMMUNITY DISCUSSION* The principals from Ethos, PIR and the Internet Society will host a community discussion on Thursday, February 27, 2020 from 3:00 – 4:00 PM EST (8:00-9:00 PM UTC) to provide additional details on these important commitments. More information about this event may be found at www.keypointsabout.org/events. Ethos, PIR, and the Internet Society look forward to hosting additional community discussions in the coming weeks. *About Ethos Capital* Ethos Capital is a specialized investment firm that helps transform and grow established companies in today’s rapidly evolving digital economy. Ethos Capital’s Founder and CEO, Erik Brooks, has deep expertise and relationships across the business, technical, and social communities that protect and promote the Internet’s core founding values. As a mission-driven firm, Ethos Capital is committed to setting the gold standard of ethics and social responsibility for registry operations and supporting a globally connected and resilient Internet. For more information, please visit https://ethoscapital.com/ . *About Public Interest Registry* Public Interest Registry (PIR) is a nonprofit corporation that operates the .ORG top-level domain—one of the world’s largest generic top-level domains with more than 10 million domain names registered worldwide. As an advocate for collaboration, safety, and security on the Internet, PIR’s mission is to serve as an exemplary registry and to provide a trusted digital identity. PIR strives to educate the global community to use the Internet more safely and effectively while taking a leadership position among Internet stakeholders on policy and other issues relating to the domain naming system. PIR was founded by the Internet Society ( https://www.internetsociety.org ) in 2002 and is based in Reston, Virginia, USA. Visit Public Interest Registry at https://pir.org . *About .ORG* .ORG is the original purpose-driven “generic” top-level domain (gTLD) with more than 10 million domain names registered worldwide. .ORG is open to everyone, providing a global platform for organizations, associations, clubs, businesses and individuals to bring their ideas to life. For more than 30 years, .ORG has built an enduring legacy of trust, preserving an open and secure Internet where diverse communities can establish a trusted online identity and freely share ideas. Visit www.TheNew.org for more information. *About the Internet Society* Founded by Internet pioneers, the Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet. Working through a global community of chapters and members, the Internet Society collaborates with a broad range of groups to promote technologies that keep the Internet safe and secure, and to advocate for policies and infrastructure that enable universal access. The Internet Society also provides a corporate home for the administrative entity that supports the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). For additional information, visit https://www.internetsociety.org/ . *Contacts* *Ethos Capital* Monique Sidhom Sard Verbinnen & Co EthosCapital-SVC at sardverb.com *Public Interest Registry* Andy Shea Jackson Street Partners shea at jacksonstreetpartners.com *Internet Society* James Wood & Kristi Mason jwood at isoc.org Mason at isoc.org -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From julian at colnodo.apc.org Fri Feb 21 12:41:44 2020 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Juli=c3=a1n_Casasbuenas_G=2e?=) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 12:41:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <6619d6aa-469c-aebd-455d-e00e49dafa54@colnodo.apc.org> Dear Luca, Indeed very good news, we have send this information to the Ministry of ICTs in Colombia in order to consider this experience for the recognition of Community Networks in Colombia as well. I think this will help us on this endeavor. Best, Julián El 21/02/20 a las 4:51 a. m., LB at lucabelli.net escribió: >   > > Dear all, > > I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also a > very positive impact on the IGF and its work. > > The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially > recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in > Brazil and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The > Community Network Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition > on Community Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. > https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias > > > This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly recognising > the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was already possible, > as simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here on CN in Latin > America here > https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ > ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN terminology > providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN Manual!) on > how to create them. > > This is not only important for Brazil but also represent another*piece > of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking shop and when > people want to use the IGF process to produce meaningful outcomes, > they can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have real impact on > digital policies. > > My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to > development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the > IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! > > All the best > > Luca > >   > > *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a > selection below: > > - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) in > the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator ARCEP > https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf > > > - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service and > Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe > report on the subject > https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false > > The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE > Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and > responsibilities of internet intermediaries > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 > > > - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in > this expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated > the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the > Committee of Ministers on network neutrality > https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 > > >   > >   > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *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.cpdp.lat  |  www.internet-governance.fgv.br > *t:* @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: -- Colnodo - Uso estratégico de Internet para el desarrollo *Julián Casasbuenas G.* Director Tels: 57-1-2324246, 57-315-2585596 Cel. 57-315-3339099 Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_firma_digital.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4444 bytes Desc: not available URL: From valeriab at apc.org Fri Feb 21 14:11:26 2020 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 14:11:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Excellent News for Brazil, the IGF and Community Networks In-Reply-To: <6619d6aa-469c-aebd-455d-e00e49dafa54@colnodo.apc.org> References: <20200221025112.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.0659801b89.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> <6619d6aa-469c-aebd-455d-e00e49dafa54@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: <17480a9b-7780-be33-6c4a-3563b3e03b54@apc.org> Dear Luca and all, Fantastic news and very encouraging developments. Similarly to Julián, we will also share the information with the contacts we have in the Ministry of Telecommunications in Ecuador. Valeria On 21/2/20 12:41, Julián Casasbuenas G. wrote: > > Dear Luca, > > Indeed very good news, we have send this information to the Ministry > of ICTs in Colombia in order to consider this experience for the > recognition of Community Networks in Colombia as well. I think this > will help us on this endeavor. > > Best, > > Julián > > > El 21/02/20 a las 4:51 a. m., LB at lucabelli.net escribió: >>   >> >> Dear all, >> >> I would like to share some excellent news from Brazil, that has also >> a very positive impact on the IGF and its work. >> >> The Brazilian Telecoms Regulator ANATEL has explicitly and officially >> recognized Community Networks as an option for Internet access in >> Brazil and, while doing so, explicitly mentions (and links) “The >> Community Network Manual” (2018 outcome of the IGF Dynamic Coalition >> on Community Connectivity) in the rational for this decision. >> https://www.anatel.gov.br/setorregulado/component/content/article/2-uncategorised/528-redes-comunitarias >> >> >> This is, to date, the biggest country on hearth explicitly >> recognising the value of CNs. The creation of CNs in Brazil was >> already possible, as simplified ISPs, since 2017 (see our study here >> on CN in Latin America here >> https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/community-networks-in-latin-america/ >> ) but this is the first time ANATEL officially uses the CN >> terminology providing both legal and technical guidance (using the CN >> Manual!) on how to create them. >> >> This is not only important for Brazil but also represent >> another*piece of concrete evidence that the IGF is not a mere talking >> shop and when people want to use the IGF process to produce >> meaningful outcomes, they can. And, importantly, IGF outputs can have >> real impact on digital policies. >> >> My sincerest congratulations to ALL those who dedicated time to >> development and use of the CN Manual, particularly the members of the >> IGF Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity that are on this list! >> >> All the best >> >> Luca >> >>   >> >> *In case you are looking for other concrete examples, please find a >> selection below: >> >> - In 2018, the inclusion of the Zero Rating Map (developed by DCNN) >> in the State of the Internet Report of the French Telecom Regulator >> ARCEP >> https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018_conf050618-ENG.pdf >> >> >> - In 2016 the inclusion of the Recommendations on Terms of Service >> and Human Rights in the ToS and HR the joint FGV & Council of Europe >> report on the subject >> https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/home/-/asset_publisher/RAupmF2S6voG/content/terms-of-service-and-human-rights-an-analysis-of-online-platform-contracts?inheritRedirect=false >> >> The Recommendations were later used for the elaboration of the CoE >> Recommendation (2018)2 of the Committee of Ministers on the roles and >> responsibilities of internet intermediaries >> https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=0900001680790e14 >> >> >> - In 2013 the inclusion of the Model Framework on Net Neutrality in >> this expert report ( https://rm.coe.int/16805a09ca )that originated >> the elaboration of the CoE Recommendation CM/Rec(2016)1of the >> Committee of Ministers on network neutrality >> https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c1e59 >> >> >>   >> >>   >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *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.cpdp.lat  |  www.internet-governance.fgv.br >> *t:* @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: > > -- > > Colnodo - Uso estratégico de Internet para el desarrollo > *Julián Casasbuenas G.* > > Director > > Tels: 57-1-2324246, 57-315-2585596 Cel. 57-315-3339099 > > Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia > > Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo > > > www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de > Internet para el Desarrollo > > Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- > www.apc.org > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_firma_digital.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4444 bytes Desc: not available URL: From froomkin at law.miami.edu Fri Feb 21 15:45:44 2020 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 15:45:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN to Hold First-Ever Remote Public Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some of us have wanted this for a long time as it offers the hope of a more level playing field between those with the funds to travel and those without. On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, Jacob Odame-Baiden wrote: > Big news indeed and firstly, while my view is that virtual meeting will not completely equal a face-to-face meeting, this > will serve as a huge test for online/virtual participation which is itself a key topic for IG discussions. Maybe this will > give a more focused turnaround for that topic. > Secondly, it is worth noting that the coronavirus outbreak has waded into global digital policy discussions and we are all > seeing the impact. You can check out Diplo Foundations recent analysis of coronavirus in digital policy context > here: https://dig.watch/trends/coronavirus-crisis-digital-policy-overview > > Best, > Jacob > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2020, 05:28 Arsène Tungali, wrote: > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2020-02-19-en > > Such a huge decision made by the ICANN Board! > Eager to hear what you all think here... > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > > > -- 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 nice & cool here -------------- next part -------------- --- To unsubscribe: List help: From ayden at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 22 08:16:12 2020 From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 13:16:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Americans for Financial Reform Asks FTC To Scrutinize .ORG Deal Message-ID: An important new development in the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry -- EFF and the Americans for Financial Reform Education Fund have written to the FTC asking that they review the deal: https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-disclosure-secret-financing-details-behind-11-billion-org-sale-asks-ftchttps://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-disclosure-secret-financing-details-behind-11-billion-org-sale-asks-ftc The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) Education Fund today called on ICANN and private equity firm Ethos Capital to make public secret details—hidden costs, loan servicing fees, and inducements to insiders—about financing the $1.1 billion sale of the .ORG domain registry. EFF and AFR today also urged the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to review the leveraged buyout, which will have profound effects on millions of charities, public interest organizations, and nonprofits—and the consumers who rely on them—around the world. The deal would turn the .ORG registry—run for 17 years by the nonprofit Public Interest Registry (PIR) organization—into a for-profit enterprise controlled by a private equity firm that is partially funding the deal with a $360 million term loan. The proposed transaction would increase the likelihood that the new for-profit PIR LLC could unfairly exercise its monopoly power to disadvantage non-profit organization consumers by reducing service levels, imposing onerous terms of service, or otherwise interfering with their operations. EFF, AFR, and 824 nonprofits—including National Council of Nonprofits, Girl Scouts of America, and American Bible Society—oppose the deal, as do 24,000 individuals and six members of Congress. AFR represents a coalition of over 200 civil rights, faith-based, consumer, and community groups and was formed after the 2008 financial crisis. In a letter to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, which coordinates the operation and maintenance of the internet’s domain name system, EFF and AFR said the deal should be stopped unless and until ICANN can fully assess, and make public, critical financial details of the transaction. Ethos and other entities involved in the sale have provided few details about financing, including how PIR, which has average annual profits of just $35 million, will make interest payments on the massive loan it will be saddled with and still provide sufficient services to the nonprofits that use the .ORG domain to exist on the Internet. What is known about the interest payments is they are $24 million a year, about two-thirds of PIR’s annual profits. PIR will also be on the hook for the balance of the $360 million loan. The registry will have to come up with substantial additional money to keep up with these huge costs, forcing it to either raise fees charged to nonprofits for use of .ORG, reduce investments in technical upkeep, or take other steps to boost revenue. PIR said today that it would restrict price increases and form a “stewardship council” to address the concerns in the nonprofit world, but these steps don’t go nearly far enough and have limited enforceability. “Given the poor track record of private equity firms running vital services for the public, these authorities need to take a close look at Ethos Capital’s financial plans for .ORG, and the structure of the deal,” said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Mitch Stoltz. “Establishing an advisory council doesn't solve the problem, especially since PIR's new owners will appoint the council, control what information its members will see and its power is limited to only some non-financial considerations." “A private equity transaction poses unique risks to the .ORG non-profit community. The private equity firm seeking to acquire .ORG is using the classic leveraged buyout strategy of saddling the new company with a massive debt load,” said Patrick Woodall, senior researcher at Americans for Financial Reform. “This formula often leads to disaster for the company and can be especially corrosive for private equity takeovers of entities with a public mission as is the case with .ORG. The public needs far more information about the financial terms of this transaction before the relevant authorities make a decision on whether it should proceed.” “The changes announced today by Ethos do not provide the protections and security that the community has been asking for over the last three months,” said Amy Sample Ward, Chief Executive Officer of nonprofit advocacy group NTEN. “The pricing clause that offers a 10% annual increase on average and only for the first 8 years does not speak to the real concerns raised by nonprofits around the world about pricing protections for the long term.” For the letter to ICANN: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-icann-about-sale-pirhttps://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-icann-about-sale-pir For the letter to the FTC: https://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-ftc-about-sale-pirhttps://www.eff.org/document/eff-afref-letter-ftc-about-sale-pir -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Sat Feb 22 11:33:45 2020 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 16:33:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Here is analysis of the Ethos Capital ORG propsal Message-ID: A PICs, by the way, is a much better way of approaching this than invoking the FTC. Ultimately, this is how the controversy will get resolved. Let's identify issues with the PIC and seek to improve it https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/02/22/ethos-capitals-proposed-pic-an-analysis-for-org-registrants/ 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: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 18089 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From rguerra at privaterra.org Sat Feb 22 15:11:44 2020 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:11:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Here is analysis of the Ethos Capital ORG propsal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6f590e6e-0d2b-41fb-8167-98232ede4057@Spark> +1 On Feb 22, 2020, 11:34 AM -0500, Mueller, Milton L , wrote: > A PICs, by the way, is a much better way of approaching this than invoking the FTC. Ultimately, this is how the controversy will get resolved. Let’s identify issues with the PIC and seek to improve it > https://www.internetgovernance.org/2020/02/22/ethos-capitals-proposed-pic-an-analysis-for-org-registrants/ > > Dr. Milton L Mueller > Georgia Institute of Technology > School of Public Policy > > > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Feb 27 09:37:07 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 09:37:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: GCTC SC3 cpSriA Secure Cloud Architecture 3rd Action Cluster Meeting Message-ID: The Global City Teams Challenge (GCTC) program has the goal "*To establish and demonstrate replicable, scalable, and sustainable models for incubation and deployment of interoperable, secure, standard-based solutions using advanced technologies such as Internet of Things (IoT) and Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) and demonstrate their measurable benefits in cities and communities.*” While led by US Federal agencies it is indeed global in nature, with 167 Action Clusters around the world. The Cybersecurity and Privacy Advisory Committee (CPAC) is a supercluster. The Smart and Secure Cities and Communities Challenge (SC3) is a sub-program of the GCTC, and cpSRIA is CPAC member cluster focused on secure cloud architecture. Dustin Loup of ISOC-DC is a presenter today. [image: Livestream] On *Thursday February 27 2020*, from *10am-Noon* EST (15:00-17:00 UTC), the *School of Information Studies * at Syracuse University hosts the *Global City Team Challenge * (GCTC) *Secure Cloud Architecture 3rd Action Cluster Meeting *. As part of the *Smart and Secure Cities and Communities Challenge * (SC3) the purpose of this meeting is to finalize the *cloud privacy Security and rights-inclusive Architecture* (cpSriA) chapter of the *Cybersecurity and Privacy Advisory Committee (CPAC) Guidebook* . Presenters include: *Dave Adkins*, CIO, NYSERDA; *Dustin Loup*, Executive Director, Internet Society US Washington DC Chapter; & *Cully Patch*, Senior Program Manager, Quanterion Solutions. Moderator: *Prof. Lee McKnight*, Syracuse University. The event will be webcast live on the *Internet Society Livestream Channe l*. *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/cpsria * *PARTICIPATE: Blackboard * *TWITTER: #cpSriA * *GCTC CPAC SC3-cpSRIA Secure Cloud Architecture Guidelines * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11821/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From governance at lists.riseup.net Fri Feb 7 14:30:01 2020 From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Akinremi Peter Taiwo (via governance Mailing List)) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:30:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Society reply to the December 19th Letter from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thank you for sharing Bruna. Regards On Fri, 7 Feb. 2020, 8:21 pm Bruna Martins dos Santos, < governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: > Dear IGC, > > I would like to share with you ISOCs reply to the December 19th Letter > from the Internet Governance Caucus re: the sale of .org. > > Important to mention that the Co-Cos and the tech team are working on > publishing our Letter to ISOC on our website and they are also interested > in doing the same, for transparency purposes. > > best regards, > -- > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > IGC Co-Coordinator > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Feb 27 14:50:53 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2020 14:50:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement Message-ID: This is about to start. ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday, February 27 2020, from 15:00–16:00 EST (20:00–21:00 UTC), the Public Interest Registry (PIR), Ethos Capital, and the Internet Society (ISOC) invite you to a webinar 'The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement'. Participants will have the opport" [image: livestream] On *Thursday, February 27 2020*, from *15:00–16:00 EST* (20:00–21:00 UTC), the *Public Interest Registry * (PIR), *Ethos Capital *, and the *Internet Society * (ISOC) invite you to a webinar '*The Future of .ORG: Community Engagement *'. Participants will have the opportunity to ask questions during the Q&A portion. The session will be webcast via the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *, and be available afterwards. A transcript will be forthcoming. *LIVESTREAM: http://livestream.com/internetsociety/orgcommunity * (open captions) *PARTICIPATE IN CALL: https://pir.zoom.us/j/360446736 * (closed captions) *INFO: https://www.keypointsabout.org/events * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11813/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in Mon Feb 10 02:18:52 2020 From: amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in (Amrita) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:48:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] IG Updates February 2020 Message-ID: <00fd01d5dfe2$5a384de0$0ea8e9a0$@in> Dear All, For those who may be interested, sharing the CCAOI January 2020 newsletter for curated news on Internet Governance policies and events from the Indian perspective. Regards Amrita Choudhury CCAOI -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Mon Feb 10 19:09:23 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 19:09:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Internet in Everything: Laura De Nardis and John Battelle Message-ID: This has just started ISOC Live posted: "On Tuesday January 28 2020 the Internet Education Foundation (IEF) will host the 2020 State of the Net Conference in Washington DC. As the 116th Congress enters its second year, some 300 congressional staff and other policymakers will attend America's p" [image: livestream] Today, *Monday February 10 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) the *Internet Society Livestream Channel * will webcast last Thursday’s book talk ‘*The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch *‘ at McNally Jackson in NYC. Author *Dr. Laura DeNardis* was in conversation with *John Battelle*, co-founder and CEO of Recount Media Inc. *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/lauranyc * *BOOK: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300233070/internet-everything * *TWITTER: #TheInternetinEverything * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11774/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Feb 11 11:48:53 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 11:48:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Controversial Sale of the .ORG Registry: The Conversation We Should Be Having Message-ID: About to start. AUWCL advertises this as a 'Fireside Chat', so things may get warm! ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday February 11 2020 at noon EST (17:00 UTC) the American University Washington College of Law, the Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, the Internet Governance Lab and the WCL Intellectual Property Brief present 'The Cont" [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday February 11 2020* at * noon EST* (17:00 UTC) the *American University Washington College of Law *, the* Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property* , the *Internet Governance Lab * and the *WCL Intellectual Property Brief * present '*The Controversial Sale of the .ORG Registry: The Conversation We Should Be Having *' in Washington DC. Speakers: *Andrew Sullivan*, President & CEO, Internet Society; *Mitch Stoltz*, Senior Staff Attorney, Electronic Frontier Foundation; *Benjamin Leff, *Professor of Law, Charitable and Non-Profit Organizations, Washington College of Law; *Marc Rotenberg*, President, Electronic Privacy Information Center; and *Kathryn Kleiman*, IP & Tech Clinic, Washington College of Law (facilitator). The event will be webcast live via *YouTube *. *VIEW ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/NEDeQt-gJNQ * *TWITTER: #dotORG * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/11778/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue Feb 11 14:25:16 2020 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:25:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Connecting_Indigenous_Com?= =?UTF-8?Q?munities=3A_Examples_and_Lessons_Learned_=E2=80=93_Dr=2E_Hosein?= =?UTF-8?Q?_Badran_=40_NANOG_78?= Message-ID: This is about to start. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday February 11 2020 at 11:30 PST (19:30 UTC) Dr. Hosein Badram, Regional Technical Advisor – North America Bureau, Internet Society, will present 'Connecting Indigenous Communities: Examples and Lessons Learned' at NANOG 78 in San Francisco. H" [image: livestream] Today, *Tuesday February 11 2020* at *11:30 PST* (19:30 UTC) *Dr. Hosein Badram* , Regional Technical Advisor – North America Bureau, Internet Society, will present ‘*Connecting Indigenous Communities: Examples and Lessons Learned*‘ at NANOG 78 in San Francisco. He will cover the recent successful deployment of *a private LTE network * in the community of *Pu’uhonua o Waimanalo* in Hawaii, as well as an *upcoming deployment * in the Northern Canadian community of *Uluhokhtak*. The talk will be simulcast on the *Internet Society Livestream Channel *. *VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/hosein * *ORIGINAL WEBCAST: https://youtu.be/xM_uGdK8S8s * *TWITTER: #indigenous #nanog78 * *Permalink*: https://isoc.live/11782/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +2185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: