From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Jan  1 19:11:49 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 19:11:49 -0500
Subject: [governance] 12 Streams #7- Internet Society Chapterthon 2019 -
 Connecting the Unconnected
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1hng+15Sei+6qoc0N0v+V2_+oGziGu6s0CWm2eD+7OBQ@mail.gmail.com>

2020 could well be the year of the community network. These videos give a
glimpse of some of the many efforts  around the globe to make it so.


ISOC Live posted: "Today, Wednesday January 1 2020, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC)
in the 7th installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of
Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature all 28 projects in the Internet
Society 2019 Chapterthon. The Chapterthon is a global"

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/chapterthon2019>Today,
*Wednesday January 1 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 7th installment
of the *Internet Society Livestreaming* <https://isoc.live/>‘s ‘*12 Days of
Streams <https://isoc.live/tag/12-streams/>*‘ annual highlights, we feature
all *28 projects
<https://www.internetsociety.org/grants/chapterthon/2019/projects/>*
in the *Internet
Society 2019 Chapterthon
<https://www.internetsociety.org/grants/chapterthon/2019/>*. The
Chapterthon is a global Internet Society Chapters marathon, where all
Internet Society Chapters can participate by developing a project within a
timeline and budget to achieve a common goal for the development of the
Internet. The Internet Society 2019 Chapterthon's common goal was '*Connecting
the Unconnected*' - finding innovative solutions to connecting the half of
the population who remain unconnected, these projects will go a long way to
helping some of the most remote corners of the world get online.

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/chapterthon2019
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/chapterthon2019>*

*ORIGINAL PLAYLIST: http://bit.ly/chapterthon2019
<http://bit.ly/chapterthon2019>*

*TWITTER: #12Streams <http://bit.ly/2t8HX2J> #Chapterthon2019*
*@ISOC_Community @ISOCBNet @ISOC_Foundation #InternetForEveryone
#switchiton*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11658/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200101/4df9dbb4/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Mon Jan 13 18:35:58 2020
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 23:35:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
            <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
            <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
            <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
            <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
Message-ID:  <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

This message, forwarded from the public list of the Noncommercial stakeholders constituency, provides a different perspective on the issue of US congress and .org

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 9:58 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

Hi all,
            I can only strongly oppose to have the US Congress having a say in this matter. I think more important than .org is to not have th US Government, nor any other, thinking they have some sort of oversee or jurisdiction over what we do. I think NCSG should actually do a statement putting the US Cgonress letter in place, making sure that the line we constantly draw to the GAC is unmistakably clear.

            I can oppose to what happened to .org for many reasons, I can also live with a lot of solutions that include Ethos having it, but I cannot, under any circumstance, live with the fact we have to “converse”, “convince” or “inform” the US congress of what we do. Our legitimacy, ICANN legitimacy, is beyond US government scope, this was the IANA Transition holy grail, that is the primordial fight we need to address in this letter. Can you imagine having the same reaction of the Russian congress? The Chinese gov? The Argentina gov? Is not relevant that they might be viewing thing like us, to some extent. That is a circunstancial coincidence. What this means is far  worse and dangerous than having a for profit PIR that ultimately we can regulate in the next contract renewal, in an already rich and diverse gTLD environment.

            I urge NCSG PC to put out a word on the letter making sure the letter is only an expression of speech like any other organisation or individual out there, but in no way has a weight, bond or obligation toward the independent ICANN.

            I think Access did this in good faith an ignorance, but why did they not come to us for ideas is beyond me. This was a mistake even they will someday understand. Next time a big NGO is eager, finally!, to come to play here, we need to be prepared to give them guidance, at least in forms if not content.

Best,
Martín

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200113/5b4e9ebd/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Jan 13 19:41:44 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:41:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_JAN_23_=E2=80=93_Opportunities_for?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Bipartisan_Tech_Policy_2020_=40NextCentCit?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2OPVmETCYQQOxZyxBSZkH9iFa7=NJbgy_pn28fv2Do+A@mail.gmail.com>

An unusually lengthy heads up for a forthcoming webcast! 10 days! Put this
one in your calendar! It's still possible to grab a seat
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/opportunities-for-bipartisan-tech-policy-registration-81756430685>
in the room. Last year
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisantech> was very good.

ISOC Live posted: "On January 23, 2020, from 9:30am – 4:30pm ET
(14:30-21:30 UTC), Next Century Cities’ second annual Opportunities for
Bipartisan Tech Policy will take place in Washington, DC. Elected
officials, policymakers, advocates, and other thought leaders from acros"

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>On *January 23,
2020*, from *9:30am – 4:30pm* ET (14:30-21:30 UTC), *Next Century Cities
<https://nextcenturycities.org/>*’ second annual *Opportunities for
Bipartisan Tech Policy
<https://nextcenturycities.org/event/bipartisan-tech-2020/>* will take
place in Washington, DC. Elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and
other thought leaders from across the USA will gather to discuss some of
the most significant technology and telecommunications policy issues of our
time. The goal of Opportunities for Bipartisan Tech Policy is to facilitate
challenging conversations, find common ground, and determine action steps
on these issues. Speakers include  *Geoffrey Starks, *FCC Commissioner; *Angela
Siefer*, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance; *Sascha
Meinrath*, Founder & Director, X-Lab; *Dr. Francine E. Alkisswan*, NTIA,
and *Benjamin Rossen*, Federal Trade Commission. The event will be webcast
via *ISOC.LIVE <https://isoc.live>* with AI captions.

*LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>*

*AGENDA: https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020
<https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020>*

*TWITTER #bipartisantech <https://bit.ly/bipartisantech> @NextCentCit*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11697/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200113/184a62d5/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Jan 13 19:47:08 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 19:47:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_JAN_23_=E2=80=93_Opportunities_for?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Bipartisan_Tech_Policy_2020_=40NextCentCit?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk30UPk_a4SsSKhh19cQwBG8JZGdJTjf=tJyj0PEd5NtsA@mail.gmail.com>

An unusually lengthy heads up for a forthcoming webcast! 10 days! Put this
one in your calendar! It's still possible to grab a seat
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/opportunities-for-bipartisan-tech-policy-registration-81756430685>
in the room. Last year
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisantech> was very good.

ISOC Live posted: "On January 23, 2020, from 9:30am – 4:30pm ET
(14:30-21:30 UTC), Next Century Cities’ second annual Opportunities for
Bipartisan Tech Policy will take place in Washington, DC. Elected
officials, policymakers, advocates, and other thought leaders from acros"

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>On *January 23,
2020*, from *9:30am – 4:30pm* ET (14:30-21:30 UTC), *Next Century Cities
<https://nextcenturycities.org/>*’ second annual *Opportunities for
Bipartisan Tech Policy
<https://nextcenturycities.org/event/bipartisan-tech-2020/>* will take
place in Washington, DC. Elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and
other thought leaders from across the USA will gather to discuss some of
the most significant technology and telecommunications policy issues of our
time. The goal of Opportunities for Bipartisan Tech Policy is to facilitate
challenging conversations, find common ground, and determine action steps
on these issues. Speakers include  *Geoffrey Starks, *FCC Commissioner; *Angela
Siefer*, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance; *Sascha
Meinrath*, Founder & Director, X-Lab; *Dr. Francine E. Alkisswan*, NTIA,
and *Benjamin Rossen*, Federal Trade Commission. The event will be webcast
via *ISOC.LIVE <https://isoc.live>* with AI captions.

*LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>*

*AGENDA: https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020
<https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020>*

*TWITTER #bipartisantech <https://bit.ly/bipartisantech> @NextCentCit*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11697/


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200113/9e3e7a4b/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 14 03:17:21 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:17:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <UaJbBulL6OncGZVsu3ei1KMsNPfyQdzMCZlDOM6-WvP3Mapu2ys9RrC2eOwiXitWUhvQX7uI1vVhDdei5ETdXQUR6Oj0ttjzKVFej9cTOl0=@ferdeline.com>

I believe that elected representatives, like any other stakeholder, have every right to comment on this issue and to ask questions. The multistakeholder model in its most ideal form is based on the inclusion of all voices, and not the exclusion of any voice.

Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 14, 2020 12:35 AM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:

> This message, forwarded from the public list of the Noncommercial stakeholders constituency, provides a different perspective on the issue of US congress and .org
>
> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 9:58 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
>
> Hi all,
>
>             I can only strongly oppose to have the US Congress having a say in this matter. I think more important than .org is to not have th US Government, nor any other, thinking they have some sort of oversee or jurisdiction over what we do. I think NCSG should actually do a statement putting the US Cgonress letter in place, making sure that the line we constantly draw to the GAC is unmistakably clear.
>
>             I can oppose to what happened to .org for many reasons, I can also live with a lot of solutions that include Ethos having it, but I cannot, under any circumstance, live with the fact we have to “converse”, “convince” or “inform” the US congress of what we do. Our legitimacy, ICANN legitimacy, is beyond US government scope, this was the IANA Transition holy grail, that is the primordial fight we need to address in this letter. Can you imagine having the same reaction of the Russian congress? The Chinese gov? The Argentina gov? Is not relevant that they might be viewing thing like us, to some extent. That is a circunstancial coincidence. What this means is far  worse and dangerous than having a for profit PIR that ultimately we can regulate in the next contract renewal, in an already rich and diverse gTLD environment.
>
>             I urge NCSG PC to put out a word on the letter making sure the letter is only an expression of speech like any other organisation or individual out there, but in no way has a weight, bond or obligation toward the independent ICANN.
>
>             I think Access did this in good faith an ignorance, but why did they not come to us for ideas is beyond me. This was a mistake even they will someday understand. Next time a big NGO is eager, finally!, to come to play here, we need to be prepared to give them guidance, at least in forms if not content.
>
> Best,
>
> Martín
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200114/567cf3ba/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 14 03:27:16 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 08:27:16 +0000
Subject: [governance] 14 Jan. 2020 The Register article on .ORG sale
Message-ID: <GYGnHVXP5ee86ftHsJDwaMkyKU9jsr6lp6FALYPTaciLsh0nPw2bSIYuacdRiEGJbP8aA0jvgBOTw-TjM-1GGbCuDtk3m7--JtrHaJ7AkiY=@ferdeline.com>

The Register offers an analysis today on new documents released by the Internet Society pertaining to the sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/14/icann_org_redacted/

"Adding to the sense that the entire transaction resulted from insider knowledge and careful manipulation, the documents reveals that yet another former ICANN executive – its former head of compliance – is also involved in the deal.

... As we discussed in an earlier article, it looks as though ISOC purposefully positioned PIR for sale a year prior to the Ethos Capital offer. ISOC has repeatedly avoided saying whether it has been trying to sell the registry for some time, even though it has cautiously admitted that it has received prior offers. It has not explained why it pulled an additional $30m out of PIR in 2018, removing almost all of its assets.

In addition, ICANN claimed in its posting – which, unusually, took place on a Saturday – that it only received the information from PIR/ISOC/Ethos Capital on 10 January. But on January 8, PIR informed us that it has already sent the information.

While a two-day discrepancy may seem unimportant in the larger scheme of things, it is just one more sign that all the organizations in questions are coordinating with one another while failing to admit or acknowledge the extent of their communications."

Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200114/c3343da3/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jan 14 03:45:34 2020
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:15:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>


It is interesting that some people in NCSG are now so wild about the
jurisdiction over ICANN of US congress and US government when the NCSG
did precious little during the time that the jurisdiction question was
actually being discussed as a part of IANA transition, including whether
ICANN should be given jurisdictional immunity from the US government...
parminder


On 14/01/20 5:05 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> This message, forwarded from the public list of the Noncommercial
> stakeholders constituency, provides a different perspective on the
> issue of US congress and .org
>
>  
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of
> *Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 11, 2020 9:58 PM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
>
>  
>
> Hi all, 
>
>             I can only strongly oppose to have the US Congress having
> a say in this matter. I think more important than .org is to not have
> th US Government, nor any other, thinking they have some sort of
> oversee or jurisdiction over what we do. I think NCSG should actually
> do a statement putting the US Cgonress letter in place, making sure
> that the line we constantly draw to the GAC is unmistakably clear. 
>
>            
>
>             I can oppose to what happened to .org for many reasons, I
> can also live with a lot of solutions that include Ethos having it,
> but I cannot, under any circumstance, live with the fact we have to
> “converse”, “convince” or “inform” the US congress of what we do. Our
> legitimacy, ICANN legitimacy, is beyond US government scope, this was
> the IANA Transition holy grail, that is the primordial fight we need
> to address in this letter. Can you imagine having the same reaction of
> the Russian congress? The Chinese gov? The Argentina gov? Is not
> relevant that they might be viewing thing like us, to some extent.
> That is a circunstancial coincidence. What this means is far  worse
> and dangerous than having a for profit PIR that ultimately we can
> regulate in the next contract renewal, in an already rich and diverse
> gTLD environment. 
>
>  
>
>             I urge NCSG PC to put out a word on the letter making sure
> the letter is only an expression of speech like any other organisation
> or individual out there, but in no way has a weight, bond or
> obligation toward the independent ICANN.
>
>  
>
>             I think Access did this in good faith an ignorance, but
> why did they not come to us for ideas is beyond me. This was a mistake
> even they will someday understand. Next time a big NGO is eager,
> finally!, to come to play here, we need to be prepared to give them
> guidance, at least in forms if not content. 
>
>            
>
> Best,
>
> Martín
>
>  
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200114/721821ee/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Tue Jan 14 05:19:55 2020
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:19:55 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>

On 14-01-2020 09:45, parminder wrote:
> 
> It is interesting that some people in NCSG are now so wild about the
> jurisdiction over ICANN of US congress and US government when the NCSG
> did precious little during the time that the jurisdiction question was
> actually being discussed as a part of IANA transition, including whether
> ICANN should be given jurisdictional immunity from the US government...
> parminder

I didn't see you there... :)

	Julf


From parminder at itforchange.net  Tue Jan 14 06:43:29 2020
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 17:13:29 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
Message-ID: <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>


On 14/01/20 3:49 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> On 14-01-2020 09:45, parminder wrote:
>> It is interesting that some people in NCSG are now so wild about the
>> jurisdiction over ICANN of US congress and US government when the NCSG
>> did precious little during the time that the jurisdiction question was
>> actually being discussed as a part of IANA transition, including whether
>> ICANN should be given jurisdictional immunity from the US government...
>> parminder
> I didn't see you there... :)

I was very much there, Julf, though perhaps I did not catch what exactly
you mean here ... parminder


>
> 	Julf
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200114/48eaf4e6/attachment.htm>

From julf at julf.com  Wed Jan 15 13:59:20 2020
From: julf at julf.com (Johan Helsingius)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 19:59:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>

On 14-01-2020 12:43, parminder wrote:

> I was very much there, Julf, though perhaps I did not catch what exactly
> you mean here ...

The actual WG meetings.

	Julf


From LB at lucabelli.net  Wed Jan 15 14:54:01 2020
From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 12:54:01 -0700
Subject: [governance] CPDP Data Protection in the BRICS
Message-ID: <20200115125401.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.7f849ec105.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com>

 
Dear colleagues, 
 In case you are participating to CPDP (https://www.cpdpconferences.org/), next week, and are interested in how emerging powers are shaping data protection, you are kindly invited to join us at the CyberBRICS session dedicated to Data Protection Regulations in the BRICS. 
 The session will take place the 23rd, at 16:00, at La cave. Besides introducing recent developments in BRICS national frameworks, we will discuss the establishment of Data Protection Authorities in the BRICS and adequacy with GDPR. 
 The session will offer the occasion to release the BRICS Data Protection Map and the distribution of free copies of the pre-book-launch brochure of CyberBRICS: Mapping Cybersecurity Frameworks in the BRICS.
 Below the panel makeup. Further information on the session are available here https://cyberbrics.info/cyberbrics-session-at-13th-cpdp-conference/ 
 Moderator
  
+ Danilo Doneda, Digital Ethics Institute and Member of the new Brazilian Data Protection Agency, BR  

 Speakers
  Luca Belli, Professor at FGV-Rio Law School, BR Andrey Shcherbovich, Professor at Higher School of Economics, Moscow, RU  Sizwe Snail, Commissioner at Information Regulator of South Africa, SA Anja Kovacs, Directress of the Internet Democracy Project, IN Bruno Gencarelli, Head of International Data Flows Unit at European Commission, INT 

 Best regards 
 Luca 
  
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luca Belli, PhD 
Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro  
Chercheur Associ&eacute;, Centre de Droit Public Compar&eacute;, Universit&eacute; 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200115/f2e605b3/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Jan  2 19:07:55 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2020 19:07:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] 12 Streams #8- Partnership for Progress on the Digital
 Divide 25th Anniversary
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2WohzGcZvkKkADYTkocy-OvYK3mhrsgaQb85t5o6jP7Q@mail.gmail.com>

Just as 2019 marked 50 years since the first message crossed the APRPANET,
it also marked 25 years since the realization that the Internet and its
associated technologies were now so vital that they needed to be
ubiquitous. It was Larry Irving, then leading the NTIA, who coined the term
'Digital Divide', and Laura Breeden who led the staff effort to ameliorate
it. Our stream today kicks off with Lee Rainie providing facts and figures,
and includes Vint Cerf, who needs no introduction, but marked the occasion
by sporting a 1994 Internet Society pin.
<https://twitter.com/JolyMacfie/status/1131925748267118592>

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Tuesday December 31 2019, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC)
in the sixth installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days
of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature three streams that celebrated the
50th anniversary of first message sent across the"

<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/arpanet>

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ppdd>Today, *Thursday
January 2 2020*, at* 7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 8th installment of
the *Internet
Society Livestreaming* <https://isoc.live/>‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams
<https://isoc.live/tag/12-streams/>*‘‘ annual highlights, we feature
the *Partnership
for Progress on the Digital Divide 2019 International Conference
<https://bit.ly/ppddagenda>*, held in Washington in May, which marked the
25th anniversary of the recognition of the digital divide through social
scientific research. This was a 3 day 4 track conference, so there were
many more speakers than the four we feature today who are, *Lee Rainie*,
Director of Internet and Technology Research, Pew Research Center; *Laura
Breeden*, former Program Director for Public Computing and Broadband
Adoption, N.T.I.A; *Vint Cerf*, Vice President and Chief Internet
Evangelist, Google; and *Larry Irving*, President and CEO, Irving Group. A
brief Q&A session with Vint Cerf and Larry Irving is also included.

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ppdd
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ppdd>*

*ORIGINAL STREAM: https://bit.ly/ppddlive <https://bit.ly/ppddlive>*

*TWITTER: #12Streams <http://bit.ly/2t8HX2J> #ppdd2019
<https://bit.ly/ppdd2019> #digitaldivide*

*Permalink*

https://isoc.live/11662/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200102/66519005/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Wed Jan 15 23:23:54 2020
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 09:53:54 +0530
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
Message-ID: <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>

On 16/01/20 12:29 AM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> On 14-01-2020 12:43, parminder wrote:
>
>> I was very much there, Julf, though perhaps I did not catch what exactly
>> you mean here ...
> The actual WG meetings.

I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including
calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of
the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the
end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related
report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US
jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get
back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction
over ICANN?

parminder



>
> 	Julf
>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200116/77603779/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Fri Jan 17 04:15:35 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 09:15:35 +0000
Subject: [governance] [new letter] Senator Warren and others send new letter
 re: sale of PIR
Message-ID: <Yo7kSQs5PPzuZ6odVCnYbNPvqeo-0Qa00Mm9DUkmI0e_DU7sKOxBldf5VenbszMWr1tjSNhFeo1CvVJfJQACoR1h1vrJ8iz5I_u64M3lkaI=@ferdeline.com>

Senator Warren and five other lawmakers have written to ICANN yesterday regarding the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry:

"The Ethos Capital takeover of the .ORG domain fails the public interest test in numerous ways: it threatens the quality and reliability of .ORG websites, and could severely limit access to these domains via price increases and 'arbitrary censorship,'" wrote the lawmakers. "And the current commitments and agreements made by Ethos Capital fail to mitigate these risks."

https://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/lawmakers-urge-internet-governing-body-to-block-private-equity-firm-ethos-capital-from-taking-over-the-org-internet-domain-name-registryhttps://www.warren.senate.gov/oversight/letters/lawmakers-urge-internet-governing-body-to-block-private-equity-firm-ethos-capital-from-taking-over-the-org-internet-domain-name-registry

Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200117/90149e0a/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Jan 18 01:35:00 2020
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 12:05:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] on the proposed transfer of PRI
In-Reply-To: <213d9590-949a-5a69-63fe-fa1b63675160@itforchange.net>
References: <213d9590-949a-5a69-63fe-fa1b63675160@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <5abc0f2f-b8b9-efc6-c0a0-4d4a9af3437c@itforchange.net>

I forwarded these questions about .org sale to ISOC CEO on the ISOC
Internet policy elist... thought this group may also be interested..
parminder 


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Internet Policy] on the proposed transfer of PRI
Date: 	Sat, 18 Jan 2020 11:36:45 +0530
From: 	parminder via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
Reply-To: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org



Hi Andrew

In case the direct questions about the .org sale were not too evident in
my below email, and you prefer to engage with clear direct questions,
I'd try and make them clear:

ICANN delegated .org to ISOC following certain criteria
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm>, which it obviously
felt necessary for an .org operator to qualify. In selling .org to
Ethos, did ISOC assess Ethos on those criteria?

If your response is yes, can you please describe some evidence of it.

If your response is no, you did not consider it necessary to employ
ICANN's original criteria for evaluating a potential new operator of
.org, then I have some other questions for you.

Why so? Do you think that time and conditions has changed and these
criteria are no longer relevant?  If so, what is your basis for such a
supposition -- how have the time and conditions changed to make those
original criteria irrelevant?

Or did you decide that, since ICANN still has to clear the transfer, it
is ICANN's and not your job to apply these criteria?

If this was why you did not apply those criteria, dont you think that --
being a public interest organisation, accountable to almost the same or
similar constituency as ICANN is, and also closely aligned to ICANN in
many ways (I* organisations and all) -- you should have applied these
public interest criteria on the basis of which ICANN originally
allocated .org to ISOC? In not doing so, did you not betray the trust
and interests of your constituencies, and of ICANN, that was so good as
to allocate .org to ISOC and save ISOC and ISOC's finances in dire times?

Many consider, including what I read from Vint Cerf's article, that
ICANN's delegation of .org to ISOC was indeed a kind of grant to help
ISOC. If so, does not the implied trust and fiduciary responsibility
make it even more incumbent upon ISOC to consider ICANN's original
criteria in taking a decision in divesting .org to a new owner?

Do you have any reason to think that ICANN no longer stands by those
original criteria? if you so think, can you help us understand the basis
of that... If you have no reason to think that ICANN still does not
stand by those original criteria, and you having not considered those
criteria in selling .org, can ISOC not legitimately be accused of
recklessness and making a mess of the whole thing when it is very likely
that ICANN would still apply those criteria and cancel the deal?

BTW, whether ISOC considered the criteria or not, Andrew, do you really
think Ethos would have qualified those criteria? I did especially point
in my below emails to criteria 6, 5 and 4. I for one can see no way
Ethos can meet them. The sale is wrong just on that basis.

Somewhat separately:

I do note that you say in a recent email that " the total price received
by ISOC was not in fact the only thing we were concerned about" .. what
other things you were concerned about, meaning what other criteria you
employed?  I dont see why your own criteria should be classified, as
ICANN's original ones were not.

Thanks, parminder

On 16/01/20 11:20 AM, parminder via InternetPolicy wrote:
>
>
> What I understand Vint to say is:
>
> .org has earlier been managed quite well by for-profits, and then it
> was delegated to ISOC, whereby although it provided ISOC a revenue
> stream, due to ISOC's non-profit status, .org was actually constrained
> to function as it best could and should have.... This defect gets
> corrected by the sale of .org  even as it even better fulfils the
> requirement of sustained revenue for ISOC.... Two birds killed by one
> stone, what could be better...
>
> So, either it was ICANN's explicit purpose to provide ISOC with a
> grant through delegation of .org, or ICANN simply made a mistake in
> delegating .org to ISOC when as Vint thinks nonprofit ownership is not
> the best for .org's own functioning as a registry (if we remove the
> consideration of revenue stream for ISOC).
>
> I actually do think that ICANN made a grant to ISOC by delegating .org
> to it, but if we are just to go by the official papers, this was no
> part of the consideration, see here the criteria for assessing
> proposal to manage .org 
> <https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/criteria.htm>
>
> Interestingly as one sees the criteria, one finds some very
> significant ones related to non commercial or NGO constituency --
> like, the need for demonstrated support among non- commercial
> registrants (criterion  6),  participatory mechanism involving non
> commercial users in policy making (criterion  5), and strong
> differentiation of the registry towards non commercial users
> (criterion  44)...
>
> My question in this regard is:
>
> A governance body acting on behalf of the Internet community -- ie
> ICANN -- gives a resource to ISOC as a favour so that it can make some
> money but also manage the resource well for the community. Is it ok
> for ISOC to unilaterally divest that resource without considering
> whether the party it is divesting the resource in favour of meets the
> initial criteria that ICANN had for a manager of that resource?
>
> Is it not ISOC's responsibility to at least assert that any new party
> being put in charge of that resource is vetted for ICANN's initial
> criteria to allocate that resource?
>
> My question to Vint, if he might, but certainly to Andrew and ISOC,
> is, did they vet Ethos on the basis of the criteria that ICANN
> initially employed in delegating .org -- and actually did a big favour
> to give it to ISOC because it also meant a big grant to it?
>
> Can they show us any proof of such vetting?
>
> I certainly cannot see how Ethos, very recently set up for the purpose
> of acquiring .org,  , for instance, meets the criteria 6 of a
> demonstrated support among non commercial users.... Or even 5 or 4.
>
> In the circumstances, is it not a grave breach of trust and
> accountability for ISOC to sell off .org which was handed to it
> following some explicit criteria, apart from it also being a grant,
> without ascertaining whethert the new .org manager met those criteria
> which ICANN and presumably the Internet community wanted to see in any
> .org manager?
>
> thanks for your engagement, and hopefully expected response.
>
> For ICANN, my humble question is: Is there any reason not to follow
> once again for .org sale the initial criteria they had for delegation
> of .org, and testing Ethos against them?  But if ICANN thinks
> circumstances have now changed, would they be as good as to inform the
> community how have they changed?
>
>
> parminder
>
>
> On 15/01/20 2:25 AM, vinton cerf via InternetPolicy wrote:
>>
>> *
>> A STRONGER FUTURE FOR .ORG AND THE INTERNET*
>>
>>  
>>
>> By VINTON G. CERF
>>
>>  
>>
>> Over the past several weeks, I have watched with disappointment the
>> controversy surrounding Ethos Capital’s proposed acquisition of the
>> Public Interest Registry – which runs the .org domain – from the
>> Internet Society. I am in favor of this acquisition and would like to
>> explain why.
>>
>>  
>>
>> First, it is worth remembering that .org was managed by several
>> for-profit companies in the past: Network Solutions, SAIC and
>> VeriSign. As nearly as I can tell, these operations were beneficial
>> and, at least, not harmful, to the .org brand.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Second, when the operation of .org was transferred to the Internet
>> Society, it created the non-profit called Public Interest Registry,
>> or PIR. PIR’s primary objectives were, first, to operate .org and,
>> second, to provide significant support for the Internet Society by
>> essentially allocating any surplus from the operation of PIR to fund
>> the Internet Society’s work in promoting a more accessible and secure
>> Internet. This amounted to about $50 million a year, which was hugely
>> helpful to the Internet Society but limited PIR’s ability to invest
>> in improvements to the operation of .org or even the creation of new
>> products and services for the non-profit community.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The consequence of PIR’s non-profit operation and its obligations to
>> the Internet Society was that it limited PIR’s ability to invest in
>> its own operation. Now, let’s consider the situation after the
>> proposed transaction. First, ISOC will receive an endowment of over
>> $1 billion, which it will need to manage. That’s a non-trivial task,
>> but also one that is independent of the ups and downs of the domain
>> name business. Second, PIR becomes a for-profit operation and its
>> investors can establish a policy of investing profits back into the
>> company in addition to distributing earnings to shareholders. Both
>> organizations end up with new incentives for their operation that are
>> beneficial compared to their earlier relationship of interdependence.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Third, nothing prevents Ethos from adopting – and in fact it has
>> every incentive to adopt – community-friendly policies for the
>> operation of PIR. Indeed, it is wise for Ethos to take steps to
>> reassure the .org customer base, especially about costs. Even though
>> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has
>> relieved registry operators from constraints on price increases,
>> Ethos has voluntarily agreed to policies based on the earlier
>> guidelines established by ICANN, and has said that any increase would
>> not be more than 10% per year on average. Moreover, as a for-profit
>> company, PIR has a clear rationale for not driving away its customer
>> base by any excessive raising of prices. Given current .org pricing,
>> a 10% increase in price would be less than $1. Even if an
>> organization had registered a dozen .org domain names, it is hard to
>> believe that such an increase would be viewed as unsustainable for
>> most non-profits. Of course, companies that hold domain names in the
>> tens of thousands for speculative purposes might find such increases
>> more troubling, but I don’t have much sympathy for that business
>> model in the context of the organizations the .org brand is intended
>> to serve.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Fourth, it is worth pointing out that the Internet Society did not
>> seek this transaction, but its Board of Trustees responded with due
>> diligence and with the help of highly qualified financial advisors to
>> conclude that this was a transaction in its interest, and that it
>> would further the Internet Society’s fundamental purposes regarding
>> the Internet and its beneficial operation.
>>
>>  
>>
>> From the perspective of PIR’s millions of customers, what is
>> important is what Ethos actually chooses to do regarding the
>> operation of .org. In addition to its commitment to limit price
>> increases, Ethos has proposed to create a Stewardship Council to
>> advise the Board on key decisions that could affect .org users or the
>> Internet ecosystem. It is my understanding that Ethos intends for the
>> Stewardship Council to have considerable authority. The Council, for
>> example, will take on the role of ratifying strong rules protecting
>> freedom of expression and safeguarding against censorship.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Ethos is also proposing to set up a Community Enablement Fund for the
>> purpose of underwriting efforts beneficial to the .org community,
>> which will be funded at a level that is substantially more than PIR
>> can invest today. The Stewardship Council will manage the process of
>> evaluating proposals to be supported.
>>
>>  
>>
>> All of these commitments, as well as the fundamental logic of the
>> proposed transaction, convince me that this is the right path forward
>> for the Internet Society, for PIR, for Ethos and for the .org community.
>>
>>  
>>
>> */Vinton Cerf/*/ is Google’s chief Internet evangelist. /
>>
>> / /
>>
>> _                               _
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
>> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
>> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
>> and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
>> -
>> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
>
> _______________________________________________
> To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
> or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
> https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
> and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
> -
> View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200118/0667cea9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Jan 19 23:38:18 2020
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 10:08:18 +0530
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [Internet Policy] Would ICANN itself have given
 .org to Ethos?
In-Reply-To: <927b90e6-6262-2a8a-5ff6-946c49eab881@itforchange.net>
References: <927b90e6-6262-2a8a-5ff6-946c49eab881@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <dc680868-6ad4-89bf-7592-8a1c1c298038@itforchange.net>

In the below I try to assess if Ethos had been an applying party at the
original 2002 process of re-delegation of .org by ICANN whether it stood
any chance of getting .org... It appears clear that it would not have..
.For that reason and on that basis ICANN should not clear ISOC's sale of
.org to Ethos... parminder



-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[Internet Policy] Would ICANN itself have given .org to Ethos?
Was: on the proposed transfer of PRI
Date: 	Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:56:31 +0530
From: 	parminder via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>
Reply-To: 	parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
To: 	parminder via InternetPolicy <internetpolicy at elists.isoc.org>



 Andrew/ All,

Thanks for your response. No more questions at this stage, but following
is my summary of how the Ethos deal may be assessed in relation to ICANN
's original criteria for delegating .org.

Let me first state why meeting these original criteria of ICANN for an
.org manager are important. It is a well known and self-evident legal
maxim that 'what cannot be done directly also cannot be done
indirectly'. If Ethos would have failed to get .org originally delegated
from ICANN -- i.e. Ethos would not have met ICANN's original criteria --
it cannot obtain .org indirectly through ISOC. ISOC should have taken
care of that, but if it has not, ICANN should. It must assess Ethos's
offer as if Ethos is applying anew directly to ICANN for being given
.org. Meaning that ICANN should comprehensively assess Ethos's offer on
those original criteria it applied in 2002 (apart from any other
relevant ones), and if it does not meet them cancel the deal.

On being asked Andrew replied that ISOC did consider those criteria.
However the following discussion leaves one unsure what his affirmative
response means.

First about the process of consideration of ICANN's original criteria:

When pressed for more clarity, in responding to both Richard and me,
Andrew said things like; these criteria wereconsidered in an executive
session by trustees, and that Andrew believed that trustees had access
to all the needed documents, and that each trustee made her/his own
evaluation etc... From this I understand that while the matter of
original ICANN criteria did come up in a f2f meeting, it was all quite
informal, and likely no thorough discussion going over each criteria
took place. People were given access to all the documents and - as I
understand -- they were supposed to point out if they saw any problem.
There certainly has been no formal elaborate assessment of the deal
employing ICANN's original criteria for delegation of .org. Asking a
group of people their opinion, reservations etc in a f2f meeting, where
they are believed to have access to all documents and information, does
not come close to meeting the requirements of due diligence in transfer
a community asset as important as .org.

It is not clear why when ICANN chose to go through such an elaborate
process to delegate .org, ISOC thought it could pass off .org so easily
and summarily, with little evidence of similar evaluation, other than
financial and legal assessments. I understand ISOC did take on high
flying financial and legal advisers. But financial and legal assessments
seem oriented to protecting ISOC's own interest and not those of
outsiders, of ICANN or the community. If ISOC had also retained a
community advisor -- i.e. if its own community instincts alone could not
be relied upon -- s/he would have advised to take the latter mentioned
community criteria more seriously. But ISOC treated .org just as an
ordinary business and asset about the sale of which they basically only
needed to look at their own - narrowly organisational - side of things.

This is very disappointing, and shows an indecent haste and eagerness to
grab the deal, without, in any seriousness,going intowhy ISOC was handed
over this community asset, in trust, in the first place. ISOC simply
considering .org as its private asset for it to do whatever it wanted to
do with it is not acceptable. ISOC knew that the deal will finally have
to be cleared by ICANN, and in this regard ICANN is obviously expected
to look closely at its original criteria for delegating .org. If not as
its basic fiduciary duty to ICANN and community, even just for ensuring
the sustainability of the process that it was getting itself and other
actors into, ISOC needed to thoroughly and formally go into the original
criteria to assess Ethos's offer.

When ICANN itself went through a very transparent, multi-step drawn out
process to decide on giving .org to ISOC, why should the latter be
summarily and extremely non-transparentlyable to pass it off to Ethos?
There is a mis-carriage of due process here.

ICANN should pullupISOC for such dereliction of a basic fiduciary duty
to it and to the community, and also for, in general, a
thoroughlyinadequate due process. It should accordingly annul the Ethos
deal on this procedural flaw alone.

Next, let us examine the substance of how the Ethos deal qualifies or
not wrt to ICANN's original criteria:

We can see three kinds of criteria, technical, community and general
business plan related. They can befound in this document
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation-report-19aug02.htm>.


In the below email, Andrew dismisses technical criteria to be irrelevant
because PIR as a whole is being transferred. No matter that PIR is to
change so substantially, and that a newly formed investment company with
no domain industry experience will be in complete charge. I dont
consider it indirect change of control, it is quite direct, just legally
wrapped well which kind of deception one should not give in to. There
have been concerns on this list about possible corners-cutting on
technical elements by Ethos given the need to cut costs and little
public/ community accountability. Therefore assessment and guarantees
about continued technical soundness may still be required. But I will
concede that on technical operations level, the criteria as presented
and applied in 2002 would have been met by Ethos's offer, or of anyone
else buying the whole PIR, in that PIR-Afilias continue to manage
operations.

This brings the focus to other kinds of criteria, as being key to
determining whether Ethos deal can be considered acceptable or not.

Of these other criteria, the community criteria 4, 5 and 6  are most
important... As argued earlier, these community criteria primarily
contributed to ISOC's original selection, most so criterion 6 of
community support. This will be evident from reading the original
assessment documents, which like Andrew I too encourage people to go
through. They are almost all linked from this document
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/preliminary-evaluation-report-19aug02.htm>.


Andrew earlier dismissed criteria 4 on "differentiation of .org tld from
commercial tlds " as also irrelevant because Ethos will retain PIR and
follow the same policies. To quote Andrew's email of 18th " Ethos is
taking over PIR and that they intend to continue PIR's policies. To the
extent that PIR has differentiated .org, then, this criterion is
automatically satisfied." I do not find such rushing to automatic or
'self-evident' qualification at all satisfactory because Ethos now would
have a controlling say and will fully determine what PIR does  - that is
the whole point and meaning of change of ownership. After paying up more
than a billion dollars, Ethos will need to earn a lot of money and
quickly. It would likely do whatever it takes to earn such amounts. It
therefore needs to be affirmed and established anew whether criterion 4
is fulfilled. But it is evident from Andrew's response that ISOC does
not think so and more or less did nothing to probe on this issue, taking
it for granted that PIR's exiting policies will be continued. Indeed we
hear that a big positive of the Ethos deal is that Ethos will be able to
invest in PIR to provide new and varied services. But we know nothing
whether these new services, and new orientation, would go towards better
differentiation of .org from commercial tlds or less differentiation. It
may entirely depend on what could be more profitable, and there are good
arguments both ways. And do remember, Ethos has little community
connection, much less accountability, to check its activities -- a 'very
big change' from the situation of ISOC owning org. It is really
unfortunate that ISOC itself does not think so. 

On criterion 5, see my email before this one to Joe, all indications are
that nothing in Ethos's original offer at the time it got accepted by
ISOC contained anything to satisfy this criterion. There was nothing to
meet the requirement of 'giving .org registrants a direct say in the
management of the .org registry to teaming with non-commercial entities
with broad roots in the non-commercial community' (NCUC report
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/ncdnhc-evaluation-report-09sep02.pdf>).
After the public outcry against the deal Ethos seem to be shifting the
role of the stewardship council somewhat, but I dont see it still get
any kind of satisfactory score on criterion 5. In any case, it no way
absolves ISOC from not having applied criterion 5 when they closed the
deal. 

As for criterion 6, the most important one in my understanding, the
Ethos deal draws a complete blank. Strangely, this criterion gets
dismissed out of hand by Andrew as having always been 'problematic'. It
is quite amusing for ISOC CEO to say so when this criterion played a big
part in ISOC getting .org in the first place. Andrew says that this
criterion is problematic because it is impermissible or difficult to do
a survey of registrants. But how this criterion was employed in the
original evaluation (see NCUC report
<https://archive.icann.org/en/tlds/org/ncdnhc-evaluation-report-09sep02.pdf>)
is very precise and clear and did not involve anything like undertaking
a survey. It involved letters of support and comments on a public board.
It is a bit self serving to declare all this as problematic when eager
to see a deal through... Well of course what was really problematic was
that when a deal is secret it is simply not possible to obtain letters
of support or get comments on a public board. Anyway, criterion 6 was
also clearly not considered. Even more importantly, it is not at all met.

Meanwhile, it is quite easy now, post the deal, to make an assessment
under criterion 6  -- there is solid widespread opposition to the deal
from non commercial community and almost nil support. So the deal
clearly falls foul of the most important criterion 6, even as judged
post facto. ISOC did not have access to this information at the time of
the deal (although in my opinion the deal was insisted by Ethos to be
kept secret precisely in anticipation of such an opposition), but ICANN
does have this information, which should make its job of disallowing the
deal quite straight-forward. With such level of demonstrated community
opposition, and absence of community support, no party could have got
.org delegated to it during the original process in 2002. So it should
be now. ICANN can and should refuse delegation of .org to Ethos on this
ground alone. Unless of course anyone can prove that circumstances have
so changed as to make this criterion irrelevant today. I myself can
think of no such possible reason, but am open to hear arguments to the
contrary.

That leaves us with financial and business plan criteria, about which
Richard has been arguing so ably; with Ethos having to make a lot of
money very quickly, meaning get a pretty high RoI, it is bothersome that
we know almost nothing about how it is planning to do so... This goes
very badly vis a vis the very important criterion 11 which is about
realistic plans and sound analysis. I get this feeling - even from the
discussions here -- that apart from assessing that Ethos will quickly
pay up the promised sale proceedings, ISOC too does not know much about
Ethos's future plans in any good detail, or about the analysis these are
based on. ISOC seems to be shrugging off these matters as not greatly of
their concern, it being upto Ethos to run their business well and
successfully (if this is untrue I did not get much evidence of that in
many long discussions here but I can be corrected). But this was not so
in the original delegation by ICANN, where plans for the future being
realistic and the corresponding analysis being sound was an important
criteria for delegation. (But then a billion dollar were not being
dangled in front of the deciding party at that time!)

So, in sum, firstly ISOC has failed to undertaken the appropriate due
diligence to subject Ethos's offer adequately to the original criteria
under which it itself got, in trust, the community asset of .org. This
includes transparency about the process. Further, if one examines these
original criteria, it is evident that the Ethos deal fails badly to meet
them. It is clear that had Ethos applied for getting .org directly from
ICANN it would not have got it.

In the circumstances, ICANN should first ask ISOC for its basis of
selling .org to Ethos, and for providing the evaluation of the sale
inter alia on the 11 criteria that ICANN itself had originally applied
in 2002 to delegate .org. This should be provided in a formal manner,
with each criterion and its application to Ethos fully argued. Referring
to evaluation reports of the original delegation would be useful in this
regard. ICANN should then make its own evaluation of the Ethos deal
using these original criteria and others that it may consider relevant.

Consequently, as we are sure as per the above that such an evaluation
would not be positive, ICANN should annul the deal.

In assessing the Ethos deal, ICANN has to ask itself this simple
question: Would ICANN itself have given .org to Ethos? It has a detailed
old process to refresh its mind and help make this judgement. If it
would not have, ISOC too cant pass on .org to Ethos. That is why ICANN
comes in, and it must stop the deal.

This is the best way out. That way ISOC would bear no contractual
liability for pulling back from the deal.

parminder


On 18/01/20 10:50 PM, Andrew Sullivan via InternetPolicy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2020 at 07:50:27PM +0530, parminder via InternetPolicy wrote:
>
>> I very much saw those documents, as well as other evaluations reports,
>> to conclude that community criteria, and especially community support,
>> was in a good part responsible for ISOC's selection.
> Ok.  The reports are available for anyone to peruse and I encourage
> those interested in this bit of history to do so.  Those who do may
> find your reference to the NCUC puzzling, but it's easily explained:
> NCUC is a successor organization.  The one that existed at the time
> was called NDNHC. 
>
>> It is entirely possible that I may have missed it in the many
>> discussions and documents, but does Ethos quality for this primary
>> technical criteria either -- of having '*actually **/operated/** a TLD
>> of significant scale for some period of time, not just shown the
>> potential for doing so...' ?*
> This question again shows the trouble with attempting to use the 2002
> criteria in a straight way, since the conditions are different.  In
> 2002, what was being planned was a new registry operator.  Verisign,
> who operated the registry before, was giving it up, and the new
> operator would take over the policy and operational responsibility for
> everything to do with the registry.  That is not what is happening
> here.  PIR is retaining the registry agreement, and the responsibility
> for operating the registry.  They are also leaving alone the agreement
> they have with Afilias for back end services.  All of that remains
> exactly the same.  If it were changing, the ICANN process would be
> different (quite correctly, because it would have operational
> implications for the registry).  That path is the "direct change of
> control" one.
>
> This path is _indirect_ change of control, when the entity that
> controls the entity with the agreement with ICANN changes.  Actually
> having operated a TLD is not relevant for that case.  And indeed, of
> course, if it had been relevant in 2002 then ISOC's bid would have
> failed utterly, because ISOC had never operated a registry.  That
> issue was overcome because of the involvement of Afilias; but if the
> objection was satisfied that way last time, it should be satisfied the
> same way this time.  Nothing is changing about the PIR-Afilias
> agreement as a result of this transaction, as PIR and Ethos have both
> said repeatedly.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200120/1d81975a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
To manage your Internet Society subscriptions
or unsubscribe, log into the Member Portal at
https://admin.internetsociety.org/622619/User/Login
and go to the Interests tab within your profile.
-
View the Internet Society Code of Conduct: https://www.internetsociety.org/become-a-member/code-of-conduct/


From ayden at ferdeline.com  Mon Jan 20 09:46:41 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:46:41 +0000
Subject: [governance] New developments regarding .ORG
Message-ID: <KFJ_3_xQqS3QBScci3cJplTua1jeOGpbQhwVM1xzBXibOH0wg3Hx63hiwRiGrup_3OzUHFG09g_EgpOUFvwJrvWVGt0HtQzC9DhJqO0fAtA=@ferdeline.com>

Dear all,

For information purposes, here are some of the latest developments regarding the proposed sale of .ORG:

Letter from National Association of State Charities Officials to ICANN

More and more public officials are expressing concern about the effects on .ORG registrants of the proposed sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital. The National Association of State Charities Officials has sent a letter to ICANN expressing their significant concerns:

https://www.nasconet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/NASCO-ltr-011720.pdf

Ethos Capital seeking to cut spend on technical infrastructure by 99%

[This interview](https://www.berkeleyside.com/2020/01/16/a-private-equity-firm-wants-to-buy-org-for-1-billion-a-berkeley-based-cooperative-says-not-so-fast?fbclid=IwAR27YNOQPMVyzX4zlu3FD_WjK9SqnbwhKIQOHZfAGEv9KHrK9A871UzUJIw) with the executive director of the Packet Clearing House states, "[Ethos Capital] said they’re entertaining bids with an operating cost of $330,000. The current operating cost is just over $30 million, so that would be a 99% cut in spending. You don’t get 15 years of uninterrupted service for $330,000 a year." We also learn that, "Ethos has already bought five companies to monetize the private information they’d be harvesting if they got .org."

Washington Post op-ed from founding board chair of ICANN

Internet pioneer and founding board chair of ICANN, Esther Dyson, has penned this op-ed in the Washington Post in which she "call[s] on my successors at ICANN to honor the principles upon which the Internet and dot-org were founded and to commit to handling this matter in the open. This proposed transaction is murky, but nothing could be clearer than this principle: The future of a public-interest service — run by and serving nonprofits — is at stake."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-give-your-dot-org-domain-away-to-a-private-company/2020/01/17/c858d250-3950-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

Protest this Friday in Los Angeles

A protest is being planned outside ICANN's Los Angeles headquarters for this Friday, timed to coincidence with a crucial ICANN board meeting.

https://savedotorg.org/index.php/savedotorg-protest-at-icann/

Another ICANN insider involved in the sale

The Register reports that "another former ICANN executive – its former head of compliance – is also involved in the deal".

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/01/14/icann_org_redacted/

Six U.S. lawmakers send additional letter asking ICANN to reject the sale

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren, Rony Wyden, Richard Blumenthal, Edward Markey, Anna Eshoo, and Mark Pocan have sent a joint letter to ICANN outlining concerns. The entire letter is worth reading, but in particular they note, "private equity buyouts in a range of industries have been shown to result in higher costs and worse outcomes for consumers and other stakeholders….the private equity takeover will saddle PIR with debt and give an unproven private equity firm substantial authority and virtually unlimited power to raise prices, reduce or modify services, monetize its power over the top-level domain, and fail to run the domain in a manner consistent with the public interest."

... "Moreover, PIR's new expenses after its acquisitions will not be limited to debt service. PIR will transition from a non-profit entity to an LLC, [20] requiring its members to pay taxes on its income. Ethos Capital and its investors will also presumably demand that PIR provide returns on its investment through dividends, fees, and other financial maneuvers that will have the effect of taking money out of PIR. While little data is available publicly about the returns promised to investors in most PE funds, including this one, the performance of funds launched by publicly traded PE firms is instructive of investors' expectation. According to Bain & Company, annual returns from "[p ]ublicly traded PE firms like Apollo, KKR[,] and Blackstone" averaged "in the mid to high single digits over the past five years." [21] To provide similar returns on its initial investment, we estimate that PIR would have to generate about an additional $50-$70 million each year on top of its debt service. [22]"

https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2020.01.16%20Letter%20to%20ICANN%20about%20sale%20of%20.ORG%20registry.pdf

Kind regards,

Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200120/fdc19f4b/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Jan 22 13:48:10 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 13:48:10 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Converting care.com into a cooperative
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2dbJSjY70z2WP+T9TtseajgtvVSbh9fyZckiXFvsz=GQ@mail.gmail.com>

Notwithstanding a recently formed California Coop <https://medium.com/@ccor>,
ISOC, via its NY Chapter, has been supportive of the Global Platform Coop
movement, partnering for webcasts of its annual conference three out of the
last 4 years.. In particular Coop models show great potential as an
organizational structure in community networks.

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Wednesday January 22 2020, at 6pm EST (23:00
UTC), ISOC.LIVE will webcast Converting care.com into a cooperative, the
first in a series of 14 guest lectures in the Who Owns the World course at
the New School in NYC. This course aims to introduce st"


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/whoownstheworld>Today, *Wednesday
January 22 2020*, at *6pm EST* (23:00 UTC), *ISOC.LIVE* <https://isoc.live/>
will webcast *Converting care.com into a cooperative
<http://Converting%20care.com%20into%20a%20cooperative>*, the first in a
series of 14 guest lectures in the *Who Owns the World
<https://www.whoownstheworld.org>* course at the New School in NYC. This
course aims to introduce students at The New School, and members of the
public, to the cooperative digital economy as a global movement. In today's
lecture *Prof. Trebor Scholz* will examine what it might take to convert a
successful gig economy business, such as *care.com <https://care.com>*,
into a platform coop. This webcast is made possible via a partnership
between the *Internet Society New York Chapter <https://isoc-ny.org>*
(ISOC-NY) and the *Institute for the Cooperative Digital Economy
<https://platform.coop/who-we-are/icde/>* (ICDE).

*LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/whoownstheworld
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/whoownstheworld>*

*TWITTER: #WhoOwnsTheWorld <http://bit.ly/36ZUchb> #PlatformCoop
<http://bit.ly/2R0eUIj>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11719/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200122/387f7819/attachment.htm>

From judith at jhellerstein.com  Wed Jan 22 17:47:15 2020
From: judith at jhellerstein.com (Judith Hellerstein)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 17:47:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] IGF USA Announces its call for topics
Message-ID: <93a6289f-02a1-05c8-d3b1-570bcc0bc008@jhellerstein.com>

HI All,

For those residing in North America, the IGF USA has announced a call for topics 
for the IGF-USA which will be held in Washington DC on July 24, 2020, The IGF 
USA has a different process of choosing its topics from the global IGF so if 
unfamiliar with our process please read the FAQs

Here is the announcement, describing the process and providing a FAQs: 
https://www.igfusa.us/igf-usa-2020-call-for-topics/

If you'd like to go straight to the submission form, it is here: 
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdsaeYW-F-2bH2cgffR6p5ARzPP6m0GfJn-LQm9mXVxAOAToQ/viewform 

We hope to get many good submissions that will infuse our discussions and will 
then be factored into our open survey, which is the next phase after the call 
for topics

Questions, feel free to speak to me or Dustin Loup

Best,
Judith

-- 
_________________________________________________________________________
Judith Hellerstein, Founder & CEO
Hellerstein & Associates
3001 Veazey Terrace NW, Washington DC 20008
Phone: (202) 362-5139  Skype ID: judithhellerstein
Mobile/Whats app: +1202-333-6517
E-mail: Judith at jhellerstein.com   Website: www.jhellerstein.com
Linked In: www.linkedin.com/in/jhellerstein/
Opening Telecom & Technology Opportunities Worldwide


From governance at lists.riseup.net  Thu Jan 23 04:31:58 2020
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne?= Tungali (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:31:58 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of
 Thematic Tracks
In-Reply-To: <C66CAB58-FAF0-47EB-930D-6A92D284C71C@un.org>
References: <C66CAB58-FAF0-47EB-930D-6A92D284C71C@un.org>
Message-ID: <CABDXvWr86jzd8paJm6nrh1wBZhj1F=m0Jt0jPYkQzDbX6GWnyg@mail.gmail.com>

Fyi

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Chengetai Masango <chengetai.masango at un.org>
Date: Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 11:25 AM
Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks
To: MAG-public <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>


Dear All,



As agreed during the face-to-face MAG meeting. The IGF Secretariat has
published the “IGF 2020 Call for Validation of Thematic Tracks.”

The deadline for input is *6 February*



https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-call-for-validation-of-thematic-tracks



We would be grateful if you could please publicize this call amongst your
various constituents and mailing lists.



Best regards



Chengetai
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200123/45ea93ef/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan 23 09:28:39 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:28:39 +0000
Subject: [governance] Washington Post editorial board comments on .ORG sale
Message-ID: <0cbR36omJaFMnAFKbsFbkXHMuJwZ9C0i2oWk9c_Tl6bEo4r-Xuol6nqorv9-v6RA0d65Gf5GDQ-vFEYL3DMPKVKd0zhfsWzUr2xdbq1VnII=@ferdeline.com>

Dear all,

The editorial board of the Washington Post has now weighed in on the sale of .ORG with this very balanced piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-dot-org-as-we-know-it-feels-a-lot-like-giving-up/2020/01/22/49d0fb30-37c3-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

This is a story of corporate squabbling, but it’s also a story of squabbling over the reality that the Internet has become corporate. Ethos makes the point that the Web is evolving and dot-org needs to evolve with it. More money for the registry means more ability to innovate and to lure in additional registrants with those innovations that will, in turn, produce more money. This is a virtuous cycle for any good capitalist, but it looks like a vicious one to many Internet pioneers who envisioned a space that liberated its occupants from the mundane commercialism of everyday life — and who bemoan that it has instead become its own “industrial complex.”

Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200123/163f6686/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Thu Jan 23 09:29:39 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:29:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_JAN_23_=E2=80=93_Opportunities?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_for_Bipartisan_Tech_Policy_2020_=40NextCentCit?=
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk2OPVmETCYQQOxZyxBSZkH9iFa7=NJbgy_pn28fv2Do+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk2OPVmETCYQQOxZyxBSZkH9iFa7=NJbgy_pn28fv2Do+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3mAkcZbnXEGwjzsMU4B_6OoHO6xKftxRX=5eU-rP945A@mail.gmail.com>

  This is about to start. Updated agenda is at
https://nextcenturycities.org/wp-content/uploads/Bipartisan-Tech-Agenda-1.pdf


On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 7:41 PM Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> An unusually lengthy heads up for a forthcoming webcast! 10 days! Put this
> one in your calendar! It's still possible to grab a seat
> <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/opportunities-for-bipartisan-tech-policy-registration-81756430685>
> in the room. Last year
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisantech> was very good.
>
> ISOC Live posted: "On January 23, 2020, from 9:30am – 4:30pm ET
> (14:30-21:30 UTC), Next Century Cities’ second annual Opportunities for
> Bipartisan Tech Policy will take place in Washington, DC. Elected
> officials, policymakers, advocates, and other thought leaders from acros"
>
> [image: livestream]
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>On *January 23,
> 2020*, from *9:30am – 4:30pm* ET (14:30-21:30 UTC), *Next Century Cities
> <https://nextcenturycities.org/>*’ second annual *Opportunities for
> Bipartisan Tech Policy
> <https://nextcenturycities.org/event/bipartisan-tech-2020/>* will take
> place in Washington, DC. Elected officials, policymakers, advocates, and
> other thought leaders from across the USA will gather to discuss some of
> the most significant technology and telecommunications policy issues of
> our time. The goal of Opportunities for Bipartisan Tech Policy is to
> facilitate challenging conversations, find common ground, and determine
> action steps on these issues. Speakers include  *Geoffrey Starks, *FCC
> Commissioner; *Angela Siefer*, Executive Director, National Digital
> Inclusion Alliance; *Sascha Meinrath*, Founder & Director, X-Lab; *Dr.
> Francine E. Alkisswan*, NTIA, and *Benjamin Rossen*, Federal Trade
> Commission. The event will be webcast via *ISOC.LIVE <https://isoc.live>*
> with AI captions.
>
> *LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/bipartisntech2020>*
>
> *AGENDA: https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020
> <https://bit.ly/bipartisantech2020>*
>
> *TWITTER #bipartisantech <https://bit.ly/bipartisantech> @NextCentCit*
>
> *Permalink*
> https://isoc.live/11697/
>
>
>

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200123/d5da6364/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Jan  3 18:45:20 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2020 18:45:20 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?12_Streams_=239_=E2=80=93_2019_Internet_Ha?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ll_of_Fame_Inductees?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk13PzJA+hUZOwcrfXS23QxA+3NSPqiKwhR_WrdTWvB36Q@mail.gmail.com>

Remarkably, Larry Irving makes it into 12 Streams two days in a row!
However, he is just one of the illustrious company honored here.

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Friday January 3 2020, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in
the 9th installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of
Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature the acceptance speeches of the
eleven 2019 Internet Hall of Fame inductees from the awar"


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ihof19>Today, *Friday
January 3 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 9th installment of
the *Internet
Society Livestreaming <https://isoc.live/>*‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams
<https://isoc.live/tag/12-streams/>*‘ annual highlights, we feature the
acceptance speeches of the eleven *2019 Internet Hall of Fame inductees
<https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees>* from the award ceremony,
held on 27 September, 2019 in San Jose, Costa Rica. They are *Adiel
Akplogan*, *Kimberly Claffy*, *Douglas Comer*, *Elise Gerich*, *Larry
Irving*, *Dan Lynch*, *Jean Armour Polly*, *Jose Soriano*, *Michael Stanton*,
*Klaas Wierenga*, and *Suguru Yamaguchi*, who was represented by his son *Rui
Takita* and ISOC Trustee *Hiroshi Esaki*.

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ihof19
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ihof19>*

*ORIGINAL STREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ihof2019
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ihof2019>*

*TWITTER: #IHOF2019 <https://bit.ly/ihof2019> @Internet_HOF*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11666/


-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200103/c55d5cd9/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Thu Jan 23 11:51:52 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 16:51:52 +0000
Subject: [governance] Latest developments regarding the sale of .ORG
Message-ID: <CwemLezfAXYb2ejz4oLEReI0Ufg3U66pLLmNjBO1nNtepxayenJQhOQseA5-2Ii40EkAZFWvqLq4LOU4H1T7QBx6IdgyaudEWHwNEuNLMKk=@ferdeline.com>

Dear all,

Here are some new developments regarding the proposed sale of .ORG:

new press release from Mozilla, directed towards the ICANN Board of Directors

https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2020/01/23/icann-directors-take-a-close-look-at-the-dot-org-sale/

ICANN directors should also discuss whether alternatives to the current sale should be considered, including an open call for bidders. Internet stalwarts like Wikimedia, experts like Marietje Schaake and dozens of important non-profits have proposed other options, including the creation of a co-op of dot orgs. In a Washington Post op-ed, former ICANN chair Esther Dyson argues that such a co-op would “[keep] dot-org safe, secure and free of any motivation to profit off its users’ data or to upsell them pricy add-ons.”

The Economist publishes an editorial on .ORG sale

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/01/25/a-proposed-sale-of-rights-to-org-web-addresses-sparks-a-backlash

ICANN argues that its remit is narrow—not to approve the sale per se, but to give its consent to the change of control of .org from ISOC to Ethos. Yet that change would represent something much broader: a shift away from the internet’s non-commercial roots.

ABC News reports from Davos on the sale

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/coalition-ngos-battling-private-equity-firm-buy-org/story?id=68449350

Some of the world's biggest nonprofit organizations are banding together to fight the purchase of the ".org" internet address by a private equity firm, calling management of the domain a "human rights and social justice issue."

Domain Name Wire piece on how ISOC spends its funds

https://domainnamewire.com/2020/01/22/guest-editorial-isoc/#more-63021

"While ISOC’s stated mission is to promote the Internet “for the benefit of all people throughout the world”,[44] much of the $70 million extracted by ISOC is skimmed from the charitable contributions intended for nonprofits working to address pressing global social needs – hunger, disease, climate change, homelessness, intolerance, the refugee crisis, among countless other worthwhile missions, as well as from the tithes and other donations made to religious institutions and local houses of worship."

Washington Post editorial board publishes piece on the sale

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-end-of-dot-org-as-we-know-it-feels-a-lot-like-giving-up/2020/01/22/49d0fb30-37c3-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

This is a story of corporate squabbling, but it’s also a story of squabbling over the reality that the Internet has become corporate. Ethos makes the point that the Web is evolving and dot-org needs to evolve with it. More money for the registry means more ability to innovate and to lure in additional registrants with those innovations that will, in turn, produce more money. This is a virtuous cycle for any good capitalist, but it looks like a vicious one to many Internet pioneers who envisioned a space that liberated its occupants from the mundane commercialism of everyday life — and who bemoan that it has instead become its own “industrial complex.”

Two NPR shows cover the controversy, in different ways

Marketwatch is joined by Internet pioneer Andrew McLaughlin:
https://www.marketplace.org/shows/marketplace-tech/why-nonprofits-are-wary-about-a-private-firm-buying-the-dot-org-domain/

OnPoint is joined by Internet pioneer Esther Dyson and the ISOC CEO:
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2020/01/21/nonprofits-beware-your-org-address-could-soon-belong-to-a-for-profit-company

A third petition has been launched and has attracted 8,000 signatures

This is in addition to the #SaveDotOrg campaign, whose petition already has 22,000 signatures:

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/stop-the-desecration-of-the-orgs

More than 10 million organization websites are threatened by a greedy private equity firm.

If Ethos takes charge of the .ORGs, any number of terrible things could happen:

They would have access to the registration information for all organizations with a .ORG website. Ethos could sell this information to authoritarian states that want to silence dissent, or to groups that want to stop certain human rights efforts, putting these organizations and the people behind them in danger.

They could raise the price of registering a domain, which might make it hard for some nonprofits to establish their online presence, or for other organizations to maintain their current website. Through this they could silence voices and perspectives.

They could censor groups by booting them off their domain—or even shut down all .ORG websites entirely.  They could start selling off .ORG web domains to anyone who wants them, without regard for the intended meaning of the domain.

Private equity firms only exist to make money, so we can be certain that Ethos will do whatever it can to maximize profits, at the expense of nonprofits that are trying to do good in the world.  In a world where a majority of the Internet is controlled by a few big companies, the .ORG domain should be protected from money-hungry interests. We must protect this space on the Internet where decisions are made in the interest of the greater good.

Finally, tomorrow there is a protest in Los Angeles

https://savedotorg.org/index.php/savedotorg-protest-at-icann/

-- Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200123/4138e8e2/attachment.htm>

From milton at gatech.edu  Sun Jan 26 23:31:13 2020
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:31:13 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <SN6PR07MB4575E68A991BFF3EF9770E87A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

Parminder, this is such a wild untruth!

NCSG representatives, specifically Farzaneh Badiei and I, were in the lead on the attempt to create new jurisdictional immunity for DNS businesses. The issue was of special import to Farzaneh, who is Iranian and is quite familiar with the way US sanctions and export controls affect efforts by ordinary Iranians to register domain names. But I do not recall you being around for any of these discussions at ICANN meetings.

Here are write-ups of the issue:
https://www.internetgovernance.org/?s=jurisdiction
No less than 4 blog posts chronicling our involvement.

Dr. Milton L Mueller
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of Public Policy
[IGP_logo_gold block]



From: governance-request at lists.riseup.net <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:46 AM
To: governance at lists.riseup.net
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale




It is interesting that some people in NCSG are now so wild about the jurisdiction over ICANN of US congress and US government when the NCSG did precious little during the time that the jurisdiction question was actually being discussed as a part of IANA transition, including whether ICANN should be given jurisdictional immunity from the US government... parminder


On 14/01/20 5:05 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
This message, forwarded from the public list of the Noncommercial stakeholders constituency, provides a different perspective on the issue of US congress and .org

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Martin Pablo Silva Valent
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2020 9:58 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU<mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

Hi all,
            I can only strongly oppose to have the US Congress having a say in this matter. I think more important than .org is to not have th US Government, nor any other, thinking they have some sort of oversee or jurisdiction over what we do. I think NCSG should actually do a statement putting the US Cgonress letter in place, making sure that the line we constantly draw to the GAC is unmistakably clear.

            I can oppose to what happened to .org for many reasons, I can also live with a lot of solutions that include Ethos having it, but I cannot, under any circumstance, live with the fact we have to “converse”, “convince” or “inform” the US congress of what we do. Our legitimacy, ICANN legitimacy, is beyond US government scope, this was the IANA Transition holy grail, that is the primordial fight we need to address in this letter. Can you imagine having the same reaction of the Russian congress? The Chinese gov? The Argentina gov? Is not relevant that they might be viewing thing like us, to some extent. That is a circunstancial coincidence. What this means is far  worse and dangerous than having a for profit PIR that ultimately we can regulate in the next contract renewal, in an already rich and diverse gTLD environment.

            I urge NCSG PC to put out a word on the letter making sure the letter is only an expression of speech like any other organisation or individual out there, but in no way has a weight, bond or obligation toward the independent ICANN.

            I think Access did this in good faith an ignorance, but why did they not come to us for ideas is beyond me. This was a mistake even they will someday understand. Next time a big NGO is eager, finally!, to come to play here, we need to be prepared to give them guidance, at least in forms if not content.

Best,
Martín




---

To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net><mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>

List help: <https://riseup.net/lists><https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/cf935d8f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 17723 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/cf935d8f/attachment.png>

From milton at gatech.edu  Sun Jan 26 23:37:55 2020
From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 04:37:55 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>

This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.

Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.
NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf

>I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?

parminder









  Julf





---

To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net><mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>

List help: <https://riseup.net/lists><https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/07955608/attachment.htm>

From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu  Mon Jan 27 10:31:52 2020
From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 10:31:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>

Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.

Co-co’s take notice.

David


> On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.
>  
> Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.
> NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.
>  
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf>
> >I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?
> 
> parminder 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
>   Julf
>  
> 
> 
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/019b4b7f/attachment.htm>

From james at cyberinvasion.net  Mon Jan 27 11:48:05 2020
From: james at cyberinvasion.net (James Gannon)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 16:48:05 +0000
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <FF64FB0D-5AD8-4E6D-B7CC-6DD2451D8CBE@cyberinvasion.net>

There is no ad-hominem here, the facts reflect Miltons statements.

From: <governance-request at lists.riseup.net> on behalf of "david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu" <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>
Reply to: "david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu" <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>
Date: Monday, 27 January 2020 at 15:32
To: governance <governance at lists.riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale

Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.

Co-co’s take notice.

David



On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu<mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:

This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.

Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.
NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.

https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf
>I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?
parminder







  Julf






---

To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net><mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>

List help: <https://riseup.net/lists><https://riseup.net/lists>
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/c6b6d63f/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Mon Jan 27 12:11:20 2020
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 17:11:20 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>

              	    	Plain statements of fact don’t constitute ad hominem I’m afraid.    	
    	--srs      



On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:02 PM +0530, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:










Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.
Co-co’s take notice.
David

On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity. Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.NCSG is there. You are not. End of story. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf

>I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?

parminder 

 

     Julf 

---To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/976ed8b7/attachment.htm>

From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu  Mon Jan 27 14:09:19 2020
From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 14:09:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
 <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <D90A3C01-A934-4BE1-B4FE-32D616A85AEC@post.harvard.edu>

If they were just plain statements of fact ….  Instead,

	"This is a joke.”

 	“… such a wild untruth!”

Those are insults.  NOT neutrally valanced "statements of fact.”  Insults attack the person, the definition of ad hominem.

Co-co’a take notice.

David


> On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:02 PM +0530, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu <mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>> wrote:
> 
> Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.
> 
> Co-co’s take notice.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.
>>  
>> Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.
>> NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.
>>  
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf>
>> >I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?
>> 
>> parminder 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>>   Julf
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200127/8b6e2b87/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Tue Jan 28 14:26:45 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 19:26:45 +0000
Subject: [governance] Facebook oversight board bylaws released
Message-ID: <_E-12Re4iXaA4snAaoDHwkVOBpMivwX2ANl23pfa1qXwvnRUe9hNXWyWCNePgqPTvwyAELWFUBFGhj-9XX5OtXf8dsgSWQ9UMS4GwTiioto=@ferdeline.com>

Facebook has released the bylaws today for its new oversight board:

https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/facebooks-oversight-board/

Ranking Digital Rights has published a commentary on the proposal:

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/RDR-Response-Facebook-Oversight-Board.pdf

-- Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200128/428d8847/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Tue Jan 28 14:29:03 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2020 14:29:03 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: State of the Net 2020 in Washington DC
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3+wMrPc6OTtmai6wwTvG2qSnC+rmUUAacTVzF79vQjJQ@mail.gmail.com>

Apologies for the late notice. That's why it's a good idea to sub to our
livestream channels! For today's event we are running out on all 3 so they
are embedded on http://isoc.live/sotn20 . Right now ISOC's Katie Watson
Jordan is on channel 3.

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] <http://isoc.live/sotn2020>On *Tuesday January 28 2020*
 the  *Internet Education Foundation <http://neted.org/> *(IEF) will host
the *2020 State of the Net Conference*
<http://www.stateofthenet.org/sotn-20/> in *Washington DC*. As the *116th
Congress <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_United_States_Congress>* enters
its second year, some 300 congressional staff and other policymakers will
attend America’s premier Internet policy conference. 2020 speakers
include *Sen.
Roger Wicker* (R-MS), *Rep. Jan Scakowsky* (D-IL), *Rep. Will Hurd*
(R-TX), *Rep.
Cathy McMorris Rodgers* (R-WA), *Rep. Suzan DelBene* (D-WA), FCC
Commissioner* Jessica Rosenworcel*, Federal Election Commissioner *Ellen
Weintraub*, and Internet Archive founder *Brewster Kahle*. Panel topics
include Iot & 5G, Encryption, Streaming, Privacy, AI, Social Media and
Platform Regulation. Thanks to sponsorship from the* Internet Society North
America Bureau <https://www.internetsociety.org/regions/north-america/>* and
assistance from* ISOC-DC <https://isoc-dc.org/>* the entire three track
event will be again be webcast via *ISOC.LIVE <http://bit.ly/sotn2020live>*.






*WHAT: 2020 State of the Net Conference
<http://www.stateofthenet.org/sotn-20>WHERE: Convene, Washington DCWHEN:
Tuesday January 28 2020 9am-5pm EST | 14:00-22:00
UTCAGENDA: http://www.stateofthenet.org/sotn-20/agenda/
<http://www.stateofthenet.org/sotn-20/agenda/>WEBCAST: http://isoc.live/sotn20
<http://isoc.live/sotn20>TWITTER: #SOTN2020 http://bit.ly/sotn2020
<http://bit.ly/sotn2020>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11723/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200128/7060177e/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Tue Jan 28 15:27:09 2020
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (sivasubramanian muthusamy (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 01:57:09 +0530
Subject: [governance] Facebook oversight board bylaws released
In-Reply-To: <_E-12Re4iXaA4snAaoDHwkVOBpMivwX2ANl23pfa1qXwvnRUe9hNXWyWCNePgqPTvwyAELWFUBFGhj-9XX5OtXf8dsgSWQ9UMS4GwTiioto=@ferdeline.com>
References: <_E-12Re4iXaA4snAaoDHwkVOBpMivwX2ANl23pfa1qXwvnRUe9hNXWyWCNePgqPTvwyAELWFUBFGhj-9XX5OtXf8dsgSWQ9UMS4GwTiioto=@ferdeline.com>
Message-ID: <CAKsgsGznUmjctoNqo3eQXq31gc-q7hvcS4PaCg9Qx=GP_BnJqw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 00:57 Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Facebook has released the bylaws today for its new oversight board:
>
> https://about.fb.com/news/2020/01/facebooks-oversight-board/
>
>
The framework and the design of the oversight board looks good. And serves
as a good example.


Ranking Digital Rights has published a commentary on the proposal:
>
>
> https://rankingdigitalrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/RDR-Response-Facebook-Oversight-Board.pdf
>
> -- Ayden Férdeline
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200129/ed742ac4/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Sat Jan  4 19:06:52 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2020 19:06:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?12_Streams_=2310_=E2=80=93_Indigenous_Conn?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ectivity_Summit_2019?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk388KSKEu5PaTZCNSSPkz=wwYX3McA4tp1k1CCFHS4CcA@mail.gmail.com>

This was just one of a number of regional community connectivity summits
that the Internet Society convened around the Globe in 2019.

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Saturday January 4 2020, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC)
in the 10th installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of
Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature a number of presentations from the
2019 Indigenous Connectivity Summit, held on 13-13"

*[image: livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ics19>*
[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ics19>Today, *Saturday
January 4 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 10th installment of
the *Internet
Society Livestreaming <https://isoc.live/>*‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams*‘ annual
highlights, we feature a number of presentations from the *2019 Indigenous
Connectivity Summit
<https://www.internetsociety.org/events/indigenous-connectivity-summit/2019/>*,
held on 13-13 November, 2019 in Hale‘ōlelo, Hawaii. Speakers include *Edward
McNair*, NANOG, *Dennis "Bumpy" Kanahele*, Head of State, Independent &
Sovereign Nation State of Hawaiʻi: *Geoffrey Blackwell*, AMERIND Risk; *Matt
Rantanen*, Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association; *Chief Leroy
Denny*, Eskasoni First Nation; *Danae Wilson*, Nez Perce; *Madeleine
Redfern*, Mayor, Iqaluit, Nunavut; *Linnea Dick* and *Joshua Watts*, We
Matter; *Denise Williams*, First Nations Technology Council; *Brian Howard*,
Research and Policy Analyst, American Indian Policy Institute, Arizona
State University; *Chris Ritzo*, MLab; and *May Lynn Lee*, Cybera*.*

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ics19
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/ics19>*

*ORIGINAL STREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/2019ics
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/2019ics>*

*TWITTER: #12Streams <http://bit.ly/2t8HX2J> #
<http://bit.ly/39D01mw>2019ICS*

*Permalink*

https://isoc.live/11669/




-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200104/102ddd55/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Wed Jan 29 07:19:04 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 07:19:04 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: The Internet in Everything Book Launch
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk0Pd64kbPZ8CJpc_pcvtiH_dm6+3AuMnQBWp5FFk0ksNw@mail.gmail.com>

In case it had escaped your attention, and attendant Amazon algorithms,
Laura DeNardis has a book out.  Today she gives it an official kick off,
aided by Vint and Anupam.

[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetineverything> Today *Wednesday
January 29 2019* at *4pm EST* (21:00 UTC) the *Internet Governance Lab
<https://internetgovernancelab.org/>* hosts a launch event for *Dr. Laura
DeNardis*’s new book '*The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in
a World With No Off Switch*
<https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300233070/internet-everything>' (Yale
University Press, 2019) in Washington DC. After an introduction from
American University President *Sylvia Matthews Burwell*, Dr. DeNardis will
be joined by *Vint Cerf* and Professor *Anupam Chander* for a discussion on
the evolution and growth of the Internet of Things, and its attendant
consequences. The event will be webcast live by the *Internet Society
Washington DC Chapter <https://isoc-dc.org/>.*

*LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetineverything
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/internetineverything>*

*ATTEND:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-internet-in-everything-book-tour-at-american-university-tickets-86533986483
<https://www.eventbrite.com/e/the-internet-in-everything-book-tour-at-american-university-tickets-86533986483>*

*TWITTER: #TheInternetinEverything <http://bit.ly/2v97YQJ>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11737/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200129/3f7a5c3c/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Wed Jan 29 09:32:30 2020
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 12:32:30 -0200
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <D90A3C01-A934-4BE1-B4FE-32D616A85AEC@post.harvard.edu>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech> <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech> <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net> <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net> <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net> <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu> <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>
 <D90A3C01-A934-4BE1-B4FE-32D616A85AEC@post.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <CADAEEV1S56NX6JD-s6XQCj7b2GpRCCijU3gG9i2AB_Md9DFqbg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear IGC,

In light of some comments made regarding the exchanges present on this
thread, the Co-Coordinators would like to remind our members to present
their comments in a courteous and analytical way. Bearing in mind the
diversity of this Caucus, it is important for us to keep on having
respectful divergences while considering the different views on the matter.

Best Regards,

Bruna Santos and Sheetal Kumar

Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 17:09, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> a écrit :

> If they were just plain statements of fact ….  Instead,
>
> "This is a joke.”
>
>   “… such a wild untruth!”
>
> Those are insults.  NOT neutrally valanced "statements of fact.”  Insults
> attack the person, the definition of ad hominem.
>
> Co-co’a take notice.
>
> David
>
>
> On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:02 PM +0530, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>
>  wrote:
>
> Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.
>>
>> Co-co’s take notice.
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>> On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.
>>
>> Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the
>> jurisdiction subgroup.
>> NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.
>>
>>
>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf
>>
>> >I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including
>> calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the
>> jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end
>> there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report
>> which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction
>> over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what
>> NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?
>>
>> parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Julf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net
>> <igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
>


-- 
*Bruna Martins dos Santos *

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200129/f1764561/attachment.htm>

From suresh at hserus.net  Wed Jan 29 10:35:03 2020
From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 15:35:03 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <CADAEEV1S56NX6JD-s6XQCj7b2GpRCCijU3gG9i2AB_Md9DFqbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
 <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>
 <D90A3C01-A934-4BE1-B4FE-32D616A85AEC@post.harvard.edu>
 <CADAEEV1S56NX6JD-s6XQCj7b2GpRCCijU3gG9i2AB_Md9DFqbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <25F457B8D0530B29.AB93C32F-B49D-4F99-99CC-40EFFC182CBF@mail.outlook.com>


  
  
  
    
    	Equally I would request the co cos to ask that caucus members please post factual content to the list as emails contrary to verifiable fact seem to arouse strong passions here.
Thanks Suresh 
    	
    	

    	--srs
    
  




On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:03 PM +0530, "Bruna Martins dos Santos" <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:










Dear IGC, 

In light of some comments made regarding the exchanges present on this thread, the Co-Coordinators would like to remind our members to present their comments in a courteous and analytical way. Bearing in mind the diversity of this Caucus, it is important for us to keep on having respectful divergences while considering the different views on the matter.

Best Regards, 

Bruna Santos and Sheetal Kumar 

Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 17:09, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> a écrit :
If they were just plain statements of fact ….  Instead,
	"This is a joke.”
 	“… such a wild untruth!”
Those are insults.  NOT neutrally valanced "statements of fact.”  Insults attack the person, the definition of ad hominem.
Co-co’a take notice.
David


On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:




On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:02 PM +0530, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:

Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.
Co-co’s take notice.
David

On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity. Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.NCSG is there. You are not. End of story. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf

>I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?

parminder 

 

     Julf 

---To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>



---

To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>

List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>



-- 
Bruna Martins dos Santos 
Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200129/4dfd491b/attachment.htm>

From david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu  Wed Jan 29 10:54:30 2020
From: david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu (david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 10:54:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter from Senators+ on .ORG Sale
In-Reply-To: <25F457B8D0530B29.AB93C32F-B49D-4F99-99CC-40EFFC182CBF@mail.outlook.com>
References: <8d057802-611e-3314-a806-dcfd1dfd100f@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB4575D9222E9D328D727AADADA1220@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <76dd2722-8ac9-2055-214e-10462c794301@dnrc.tech>
 <SN6PR07MB45752C1344B8972B80CB3779A1390@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <1727b932-a6be-264d-4678-bb7158735b88@dnrc.tech>
 <523BAF8D-BA6D-4255-A34E-694ABF076DCE@gmail.com>
 <SN6PR07MB4575C77BE75F9FFA62A68EE9A1350@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <a1ed6179-5ffb-3614-0890-8823ebc8fab4@itforchange.net>
 <d1660f91-d99d-301f-b1be-577b02ffa4c5@julf.com>
 <8e01e36b-9aa5-0edb-715b-db0ee591b270@itforchange.net>
 <877cb8dd-2447-8f94-8466-ecbb3b915b74@julf.com>
 <dbcc5666-a8c0-2932-7244-5defd3ab831e@itforchange.net>
 <SN6PR07MB457556908E1A335904E8B464A10B0@SN6PR07MB4575.namprd07.prod.outlook.com>
 <67B5CAC7-10CD-4EB6-B294-A36BF3E9EE81@post.harvard.edu>
 <25F457B8D0530B29.27714807-CC0D-458F-9067-CB2E90638261@mail.outlook.com>
 <D90A3C01-A934-4BE1-B4FE-32D616A85AEC@post.harvard.edu>
 <CADAEEV1S56NX6JD-s6XQCj7b2GpRCCijU3gG9i2AB_Md9DFqbg@mail.gmail.com>
 <25F457B8D0530B29.AB93C32F-B49D-4F99-99CC-40EFFC182CBF@mail.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <002BAC33-D2B3-4240-824D-172CDFCBEECB@post.harvard.edu>

With appreciation to the  co-co’s.

Indeed, inappropriate passions are what rules against their expression explicitly proscribe.

So that, when there is disagreement about what are in fact the facts – no, some are not sole arbiters of what are “the facts” – there can be a civil exchange toward resolving the question.

David


> On Jan 29, 2020, at 10:35 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net> wrote:
> 
> Equally I would request the co cos to ask that caucus members please post factual content to the list as emails contrary to verifiable fact seem to arouse strong passions here.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> --srs
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:03 PM +0530, "Bruna Martins dos Santos" <governance at lists.riseup.net <mailto:governance at lists.riseup.net>> wrote:
> 
> Dear IGC, 
> 
> In light of some comments made regarding the exchanges present on this thread, the Co-Coordinators would like to remind our members to present their comments in a courteous and analytical way. Bearing in mind the diversity of this Caucus, it is important for us to keep on having respectful divergences while considering the different views on the matter.
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> Bruna Santos and Sheetal Kumar 
> 
> Le lun. 27 janv. 2020 à 17:09, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu <mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>> a écrit :
> If they were just plain statements of fact ….  Instead,
> 
> 	"This is a joke.”
> 
>  	“… such a wild untruth!”
> 
> Those are insults.  NOT neutrally valanced "statements of fact.”  Insults attack the person, the definition of ad hominem.
> 
> Co-co’a take notice.
> 
> David
> 
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2020, at 12:11 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net <mailto:suresh at hserus.net>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:02 PM +0530, <david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu <mailto:david_allen_ab63 at post.harvard.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ad hominem attacks are grounds for removal from the list.
>> 
>> Co-co’s take notice.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jan 26, 2020, at 11:37 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is a joke. You did nothing to help create jurisdictional immunity.
>>>  
>>> Here is a link to the record of public comment on the final report on the jurisdiction subgroup.
>>> NCSG is there. You are not. End of story.
>>>  
>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/responses-comments-recommendations-on-icann-jurisdiction-20mar18-en.pdf>
>>> >I was there in most jurisdiction issue related WG meetings, including calls, and email discussions . I initiative many of the key elements of the jurisdiction issue and argued extensively about most of them. In the end there were two dissenting notes to the final jurisdiction related report which did not agree that enough was done to remove/ reduce US jurisdiction over ICANN, Brazil government's and mine.  . Can we now get back to what NCUC was doing about removing/ reducing US jurisdiction over ICANN?
>>> 
>>> parminder 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>>   Julf
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net> <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists> <https://riseup.net/lists>---
>>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
>>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
>> 
>> 
> 
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists <https://riseup.net/lists>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Bruna Martins dos Santos 
> 
> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
> @boomartins
> ---
> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200129/eca055bc/attachment.htm>

From governance at lists.riseup.net  Thu Jan 30 08:51:43 2020
From: governance at lists.riseup.net (Carolina Rossini (via governance Mailing List))
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2020 08:51:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] Portulans Institute 2020 Plans & News
In-Reply-To: <CAM=1Lj-aqDk8Ye1A_fho9s5qwyKq_ND2X0o-iBcZs8G0E8Qfhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150.018340ec59.20200130100422.d9e4e7573e.6c13f50d@mail84.sea91.rsgsv.net>
 <CAM=1Lj-aqDk8Ye1A_fho9s5qwyKq_ND2X0o-iBcZs8G0E8Qfhw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK-FJAfai2bJ=fFUvrvZ-b60ZEJGs38gr+vu=YfEf7Y2b6w2NA@mail.gmail.com>

As we enter the new decade, we wish to provide you with some updates on our
plans for 2020.
View this email in your browser
<https://mailchi.mp/e99f74ffe817/portulans-institute-2020-plans-news?e=018340ec59>
Plans & News for 2020 January 30, 2020
A Note from the Founders

Dear friends and colleagues,

As we enter the new decade, we wish to provide you with some updates on our
plans for 2020, including opportunities for you to engage with Portulans! Below
you will find information about our upcoming *launches*, *updates, and
events. *

Created in order to develop cross-community knowledge and dialogue on how
people, technology and innovation contribute to sustainable and inclusive
economic growth, the Portulans Institute aims to further this goal in 2020
by introducing our *Fellowship Program*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=e14eb6e666&e=018340ec59>
in January. This program will aim to increase the *global reach* and
*impact* of our respective partners. *Application deadline is February
7th! *

The *Network Readiness Index 2019,*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=0459f53a83&e=018340ec59>
which launched in Geneva in December 2019 ranks a total of *121 economies*
based on their performances across *62 variables.* Learn more with our
*executive
summary*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=7e0d91704b&e=018340ec59>
or read the *full report*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=f1bcd9f6d9&e=018340ec59>
 *.*  Importantly, this year we plan on adding to the NRI by producing
individual country studies and policy roadmaps.

Innovation and excellence in our activities is one of the* core values *of
the Portulans Institute and in 2020 we aim to bolster this by *expanding
our outreach and activities*. We are all extremely excited for the new year
and we hope you join us on our mission.

All the best,

Soumitra Dutta, Bruno Lanvin, and Carolina Rossini
Founders, Portulans Institute
To never miss another monthly newsletter make sure to *click* and
*subscribe*!
Subscribe
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=6bac3437b2&e=018340ec59>

[Left to Right] Soumitra Dutta, Carolina Rossini, and Bruno Lanvin
*The Network Readiness Index 2019: Towards a Future-Ready Society*

Launched in Geneva, in December 2019, the complete Network Readiness Index
(NRI) is now available for *download*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=aa1585907f&e=018340ec59>.
First published in 2002, the Index provided a holistic framework for
assessing the *multi-faceted impact of ICT* on society and the development
of nations.

The NRI rapidly developed into an influential *global benchmark* for the
application and utilization of ICT. Many economies utilized the NRI to
design their ICT strategies, and *the NRI was used and frequently quoted *by
leaders from the public and private sectors.

The redesigned NRI ranks a total of *121 economies* based on their
performances across *62 variables* and recognizes the pervasiveness of
digital technologies in today’s networked world and therefore rests on four
fundamental dimensions: *Technology, People, Governance and Impact.* This
holistic approach means that the NRI covers issues ranging from future
technologies such as *Artificial Intelligence* and the *Internet of Things
(IoT) *to the role of the digital economy in reaching the *Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs).*

The *top performer *in this year’s index is *Sweden*, which is just ahead
of *Singapore* in *2nd place* and *the Netherlands* in *3rd place*. The *top
10* countries in the NRI 2019 are *shown in the table below *along
with the *top
regional performers*. The top of the rankings are dominated by *European
nations*, with the region claiming 8 of the top 10 positions. The* United
States *is ranked *8th* globally.
Full Report Here
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=d4575daf9e&e=018340ec59>

Portulans Institute co-founder Bruno Lanvin interviewed by CNN Switzerland
in Davos.
*Presentation of the NRI and the Case of India*

Since the launch of the 2019 edition of the Network Readiness Index
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=a8633e4b6e&e=018340ec59>
(NRI)
in Geneva on December 18th 2019, Portulans Institute co-founder Soumitra
Dutta has presented the Network Readiness Index and his work on the Global
Innovation Index to multiple groups.

Dutta started the year with lectures to the *Cornell EMBA Metro Class*,
teaching a course on *Leading Digital Transformation* *and Innovation* to
the EMBA students. Afterwards, Dutta traveled to India and presented the
NRI at two major business schools in India. First, on January 17th, Dutta
was the keynote academic speaker at the *SP Jain Institute of Management
Research’s Business Academia Enclave*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=e4357fc8e9&e=018340ec59>
in
Mumbai. Dutta spoke about how becoming network-ready implies *profound
organizational and business model change* and requires leadership from the
very top of organizations.  Later, on January 20th, Dutta addressed
students at the *Goa Institute of Management*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=b2eae48ef9&e=018340ec59>,
where
he stressed the importance of building an effective knowledge innovation
ecosystem with a focus on multiple factors including *education*, *SMEs*,
*institutions*, *ecosystems*, and *branding*.

In the 2019 NRI, *India is ranked 79 among 121 ranked countries*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=f2460f09af&e=018340ec59>.
Its
key strength lies in *Governance (52nd)*, as a result of consistent
performances in all three sub-pillars: *Trust (49th)*, *Regulation (59th)*
and *Inclusion (58th)*.

Click the* button* below to read the full blog post and watch the key-note
video!
Full Blog Post
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=90cd516f45&e=018340ec59>
Dutta addressing the faculty and students of the Goa Institute of Management
Dutta presenting the keynote on innovation and technology at S.P. Jain
Institute of Management & Research
*Launches & Updates: *

*2020 Portulans Institute Fellowship*
The Portulans Institute is offering opportunities for *graduate students*
and *young professionals* to work on novel research related to *human
capital*, *technology*, and *innovation* policies. We encourage
applications from *individuals in any country* who are committed to
understanding and advancing an inclusive and sustainable development of
societies. Click *here*
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=9d9eac29df&e=018340ec59>
to learn more!

*Upcoming Relevant Events:*

*Our co-founders will attend and speak at:*

   - *Data as a Development Issue*,
   <https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=cd8a0945b6&e=018340ec59>
   Washington D.C. January 31, 2020
   - *American University of Cairo*, February 9-10, 2020: Soumitra Dutta
   will give a presentation

*Portulans Institute is co-organizing panels at:*

   - *eCommerce Week 2020: Creating value in the digital economy:*
   <https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=8df6ca33ab&e=018340ec59>
   27 April - 1 May 2020
   - *12th WTO Ministerial Conference:*
   <https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=650135145f&e=018340ec59>
   <https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=fb15478791&e=018340ec59>June
   8-11 2020

*Portulans Institute Newsletter:*

The Portulans Institute Newsletter aims to provide our audience with
*up-to-date
news* about our *upcoming *launches, events & projects.  The Newsletter
will also include important developments in the world of *Innovation*,
*Technology,* & *Global Talent*.

*Click to subscribe!*
Subscribe
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=afc7ce1533&e=018340ec59>


ABOUT THE PORTULANS INSTITUTE

Founded in 2019, the Portulans Institute (PI) is an independent non-profit,
non-partisan research and educational institute based in Washington DC.

Website
<https://portulansinstitute.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=87d5bb342ae5650d01f820150&id=d5a3b5d351&e=018340ec59>

-- 


*__Carolina A. Rossini, JD, LLM, MBA*
*Skype:* carolina.rossini_2 | Twitter: @carolinarossini
https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolinarossini/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200130/d0510462/attachment.htm>

From anriette at apc.org  Fri Jan 31 03:24:50 2020
From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:24:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] IGF 2020 Call For Validation of Thematic Tracks
In-Reply-To: <C66CAB58-FAF0-47EB-930D-6A92D284C71C@un.org>
References: <C66CAB58-FAF0-47EB-930D-6A92D284C71C@un.org>
Message-ID: <44a6f5b8-e361-34b7-174d-353e741fc3b3@apc.org>

Dear all,

Apologies for cross posting. The IGF Secretariat has published the “IGF
2020 Call for Validation of Thematic Tracks.” It follows on the initial
call for input and stocktaking on the IGF in 2019 that was circulated in
December. Responses to the initial call were synthesised and discussed
by the IGF MAG at its January 2020 meeting. The purpose of this call for
input is to get feedback on:

- the proposed main tracks

- subthemes, issues, questions, solutions related to the main tracks

- how to integrate new priorities that were proposed in response to the
first call

- and any other input you have at this time.

The deadline for input is *6 February**
*

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-call-for-validation-of-thematic-tracks

Please do respond.  I realise your time is limited and valuable, but
your input really matters, and is needed.

Thanks

Anriette Esterhuysen (IGF 2020 MAG chair)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200131/b8f3ad97/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org


From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Jan 31 07:58:55 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 07:58:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Trinidad_and_Tobago_Inter?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?net_Governance_Forum_2020_=E2=80=93_=E2=80=9CThe_Internet_=26_Y?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?ou=3A_Ensuring_the_Internet=E2=80=99s_Future=E2=80=9D_=23TTIGF2?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?020?=
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1vbLcAEXVVERiKkdTQOcT3TndaFD5vei=Md+NK=t8sqg@mail.gmail.com>

Just starting https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/ttigf2020

ISOC Live posted: "On Friday January 31st, 2020 from 9am-5pm AST
(13:00-21:00 UTC) the fourth Trinidad and Tobago Internet Governance Forum
(TTIGF) will be held in San Fernando, Trinidad. TTIGF 2020 has the theme
“The Internet & You: Ensuring the Internet's Future”. The"


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/ttigf2020>On *Friday
January 31st, 2020* from *9am-5pm AST* (13:00-21:00 UTC) the fourth *Trinidad
and Tobago Internet Governance Forum <https://igf.tt/>* (TTIGF) will be
held in San Fernando, Trinidad. TTIGF 2020 has the theme “*The Internet &
You: Ensuring the Internet's Future*”. The event will be webcast live on
both *YouTube* and the *Internet Society Livestream Channel #2
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/ttigf2020>*.




*LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/ttigf2020
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety2/ttigf2020> YOUTUBE:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzKEG9fcJHGm3P2nZpC0viw/live
<https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzKEG9fcJHGm3P2nZpC0viw/live> AGENDA:
https://igf.tt/ttigf-2020-draft-agenda/
<https://igf.tt/ttigf-2020-draft-agenda/> TWITTER: #TTIGF2020
<https://bit.ly/TTIGF2020>*


*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11746/



-

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200131/29a3fa28/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Jan 31 09:39:22 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 09:39:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Data as a Development Issue
 #digitaltrade @DataGovHub
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1DCtni9wPGJxWWsW6SNRS-JTk36=UBB4JUncqUoDqbXg@mail.gmail.com>

This is under way. It is the second in the series, first is here
<https://isoc.live/11474/>.

ISOC Live posted: "On Friday, January 31, 2020 from 9am - 5pm ET
(14:00-22-00 UTC) the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub (GWU), the
Center for Global Development, the Heinrich Böll Foundation of Washington,
D.C. and the Institute for International Economic Policy (IIEP "


[image: Livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2>On
*Friday, January 31, 2020* from *9am - 5pm* ET (14:00-22-00 UTC) the *Digital
Trade and Data Governance Hub <https://datagovhub.org/>* (GWU), the *Center
for Global Development <https://www.cgdev.org/>*, the *Heinrich Böll
Foundation of Washington, D.C. <https://us.boell.org/>* and the *Institute
for International Economic Policy <https://iiep.gwu.edu/>* (IIEP GWU)
present *Data as a Development Issue
<https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/>* at the Elliott
School of International Affairs in Washington, DC. We are in the early
phase of debating how governments should prepare for and manage the growing
role of data in their economies and there is a limited consensus on best
approaches. The aim of this free conference is to improve our shared
understanding of the role of data governance for economic growth and
development. The event is sponsored by *GW CIBER
<https://business.gwu.edu/research/ciber>* and will be webcast live by
the *Internet
Society Washington DC Chapter <http://isoc-dc.org>*.

*LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2>*

*AGENDA https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/
<https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/>*

*TWITTER #digitaltrade @DataGovHub <http://bit.ly/35Ym97K> *

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11749/


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200131/65e46a68/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Fri Jan 31 10:56:11 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2020 10:56:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] WEBCAST TODAY: Data as a Development Issue
 #digitaltrade @DataGovHub
In-Reply-To: <CAM9VJk1DCtni9wPGJxWWsW6SNRS-JTk36=UBB4JUncqUoDqbXg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM9VJk1DCtni9wPGJxWWsW6SNRS-JTk36=UBB4JUncqUoDqbXg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk1jzUVBzpp83ToSeZo7KJ2fW6-d2azxtYi0k+kFioLmUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Please note updated hashtag #DataDevCon2020 <https://bit.ly/DataDevCon2020>


On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:39 AM Joly MacFie <joly at punkcast.com> wrote:

> This is under way. It is the second in the series, first is here
> <https://isoc.live/11474/>.
>
> ISOC Live posted: "On Friday, January 31, 2020 from 9am - 5pm ET
> (14:00-22-00 UTC) the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub (GWU), the
> Center for Global Development, the Heinrich Böll Foundation of Washington,
> D.C. and the Institute for International Economic Policy (IIEP "
>
>
> [image: Livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2>On
> *Friday, January 31, 2020* from *9am - 5pm* ET (14:00-22-00 UTC) the *Digital
> Trade and Data Governance Hub <https://datagovhub.org/>* (GWU), the *Center
> for Global Development <https://www.cgdev.org/>*, the *Heinrich Böll
> Foundation of Washington, D.C. <https://us.boell.org/>* and the *Institute
> for International Economic Policy <https://iiep.gwu.edu/>* (IIEP GWU)
> present *Data as a Development Issue
> <https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/>* at the Elliott
> School of International Affairs in Washington, DC. We are in the early
> phase of debating how governments should prepare for and manage the growing
> role of data in their economies and there is a limited consensus on best
> approaches. The aim of this free conference is to improve our shared
> understanding of the role of data governance for economic growth and
> development. The event is sponsored by *GW CIBER
> <https://business.gwu.edu/research/ciber>* and will be webcast live by
> the *Internet Society Washington DC Chapter <http://isoc-dc.org>*.
>
> *LIVESTREAM https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2
> <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/digitaltrade2>*
>
> *AGENDA https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/
> <https://datagovhub.org/data-as-a-development-issue/>*
>
> *TWITTER #digitaltrade @DataGovHub <http://bit.ly/35Ym97K> *
>
> *Permalink*
> https://isoc.live/11749/
>
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
>


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200131/6b7a99cf/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Sun Jan  5 18:57:55 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2020 18:57:55 -0500
Subject: [governance] 12 Streams #11 - DNSSEC for Everybody: A Beginner's
 Guide @ICANN66
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk2qwu1_cvdST=t4yhmR_mXq+0VR5SsYbf5NZSY5ALMkJw@mail.gmail.com>

In the latter part of 2019 you may be aware of some
drama surrounding ISOC's relationship with ICANN, but this particular
performance, staged in 3 acts, might have escaped you!

As noted this stream will run consecutively in all 5 UN languages.

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Sunday January 5 2020, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in
the 11th installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12 Days of
Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature the ‘DNSSEC for Beginners’ session
from ICANN 66, 3 November 2019, in Montreal, present"


[image: livestream]
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnssecforeverybody>Today, *Sunday
January 5 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 11th installment of
the *Internet
Society Livestreaming* <https://isoc.live/>‘s ‘*12 Days of Streams
<https://isoc.live/tag/12-streams/>*‘ annual highlights, we feature
the ‘*DNSSEC
for Beginners <https://66.schedule.icann.org/meetings/1116746>*’ session
from ICANN 66, 3 November 2019, in Montreal, presented by *ICANN SSAC
<https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac>* and *ISOC Deploy360
<https://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/>*. From the Root, to both
Generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and Country Code Top Level Domains
(ccTLDs), the push is on to *deploy DNSSEC
<http://www.dnssec-deployment.org/>* to every corner of the internet.
Businesses and ISPs are building their deployment plans too and interesting
opportunities are opening up for all as the rollout continues. Worried that
you’re getting left behind? Don’t really understand DNSSEC? This is the
stream for you!

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM:
https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnssecforeverybody
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnssecforeverybody>*

*SCHEDULE: ENGLISH 00:00 UTC | 01:18 UTC عربى | ESPAÑOL 02:36 UTC |
FRANÇAIS 03:54 UTC | РУССКИЙ 05:12 UTC*

*TRANSCRIPT (ENGLISH):
http://isoc.live/misc/20191103_dnssecforeverybody.txt
<http://isoc.live/misc/20191103_dnssecforeverybody.txt>*

*TWITTER: #DNSSECforEverybody <http://bit.ly/2SXHWtw> @ICANN66
@InternetSociety @Deploy360 @ICANN SSAC #DNSSEC @DanYork*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11676/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200105/cada75cc/attachment.htm>

From joly at punkcast.com  Mon Jan  6 19:04:15 2020
From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie)
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2020 19:04:15 -0500
Subject: [governance] 12 Streams #12 Internet Society 2020 Action Plan
 Community Webinar
Message-ID: <CAM9VJk3bu5JHPCbpg2JY2_phF9hbCtPOUHsgYwoo5v_EL40BRA@mail.gmail.com>

As we finish looking back, our attention turns to the year ahead, the work,
and achievements, to come.

ISOC Live posted: "Today, Monday January 6 2020, at 7pm EST (00:00 UTC) in
the 12th and last installment of the Internet Society Livestreaming‘s ‘12
Days of Streams‘ annual highlights, we feature the Internet Society 2020
Action Plan Special Community Forum on December 11 2"


<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/2020actionplan>Today, *Monday
January 6 2020*, at *7pm EST* (00:00 UTC) in the 12th and last installment
of the *Internet Society Livestreaming <https://isoc.live/>*‘s ‘*12 Days of
Streams <https://isoc.live/tag/12-streams/>*‘ annual highlights, we feature
the *Internet Society 2020 Action Plan Special Community Forum
<http://bit.ly/39Ju4sF>* on December 11 2019. Presenters: *Andrew Sullivan*,
President & CEO; *Rinalia Abdul Rahim*, Senior Vice President of Strategy
and Implementation; *Joseph Lorenzo Hall*, Senior Vice President, Strong
Internet; *Jane Coffin*, Senior Advisor to the CEO, Connectivity &
Infrastructure; were followed by a Q&A moderated by *Joyce Dogniez*, Vice
President Community Engagement and Development. Finally, the *winners
<https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2019/12/celebrating-a-successful-2019-chapterthon/>*
of the *2019 Chapterthon
<https://www.internetsociety.org/grants/chapterthon/2019/>* were announced.

The *2020 Action Plan* <https://www.internetsociety.org/action-plan/2020/>
defines three strategic goals: *Build*, *Promote*, and *Defend*. These are
further broken down into eight projects:
1. Building community networks.
2. Fostering infrastructure and technical communities.
3. Measuring the Internet.
4. Promoting the Internet way of networking.
5. Securing global routing.
6. Extending encryption.
7. Increasing Time Security.
8. Leading by example with open standards and protocols.

*VIEW ON LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/2020actionplan
<https://livestream.com/internetsociety/2020actionplan>*

*SLIDES: https://isoc.live/isoc/2019-12-11_ISOC_2020_Action_Plan.pdf
<https://isoc.live/isoc/2019-12-11_ISOC_2020_Action_Plan.pdf>*

*VIEW ON YOUTUBE: https://youtu.be/NxmObUQtUoQ
<https://youtu.be/NxmObUQtUoQ>*

*TWITTER: #2020actionplan <http://bit.ly/2020ActionPlan>*

*Permalink*
https://isoc.live/11680/



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200106/019c76a4/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan  8 05:08:27 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:08:27 +0000
Subject: [governance] Wyden, Blumenthal, Warren and Eshoo Question Sale
 of .ORG Domains to Private Equity Firm
In-Reply-To: <CAA5eo1JZ5CP6HA5iS2HwWrE9CBZGfh8HMRxAQ_DFc=MK+PjWWg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <xTSZ4dJ6gxs4vIC-Awhq0Jk4OMBvE29uiZkCkGHZnYYh5sHsi703q6r-_SFGcXPXXkqne1zSjrFZP0FW_QkKxM1IYkAqY_rjR7iMcEJvUJw=@ferdeline.com>
 <CAA5eo1JZ5CP6HA5iS2HwWrE9CBZGfh8HMRxAQ_DFc=MK+PjWWg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CkvCWvIPdYwPpNzajJVARq4QOPTzXv8iErZcWxAzm4wBccBLUQUvDsLSAitkPQSQMtuJiOcP3zhLu3PPxuEdAENeZ-K1dzBuiNbfE6fcC6A=@ferdeline.com>

Dear all,

ISOC has now published their response to this 23 December 2019 congressional letter. I am sharing it here for informational purposes:

Blog post: https://www.keypointsabout.org/blog/the-internet-society-pir-and-ethos-respond-to-congressional-letter

Letter to (PDF): https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5dd7f6113c431419c139b89d/t/5e14dbe2e375184c7b0a12a6/1578425314581/ISOC_PIR_Ethos_Letter_Response_06Jan2020.pdf

Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, December 24, 2019 8:42 PM, Brett Solomon <brett at accessnow.org> wrote:

> Bravo!
>
> The full letter is excellent and captures  what is clear disquiet in the community, at the UN and now within the US Senate (including Senator Warren). It's worth a read:
>
> https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/122319%20RW%20Letter%20to%20PIR%20ISOC%20Ethos.pdf
>
> I maintain that the sale should not go ahead.
>
> None of the arguments on this list have convinced me otherwise, nor dare I say the [536 organizations and 18,999 signatories](https://savedotorg.org/) who are opposed to the sale and have called for it not to proceed.
>
> Thanks for the robust debate all - and happy holidays!
>
> Brett
>
> Brett Solomon
> Executive Director
> Access Now | accessnow.org
> @solomonbrett
> Key ID: 0x4EDC17EB
> Fingerprint: C02C A886 B0FC 3A25 FF9F ECE8 FCDF BA23 4EDC 17EB
>
> *Subscribe to the [Access Now Express](https://www.accessnow.org/campaign/#sign-up), our weekly newsletter on digital rights
> *Protect digital rights around the world - [support Access Now](https://act.accessnow.org/page/13742/donate/1) with a donation today
>
> On Tue, Dec 24, 2019 at 2:08 PM Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Four US senators have sent a letter to the Internet Society yesterday raising a number of questions regarding the sale of the Public Interest Registry to Ethos Capital. Their letter can be founded on this webpage: https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-blumenthal-warren-and-eshoo-question-sale-of-org-domains-to-private-equity-firm
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden Férdeline
>> ---
>> To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
>> List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200108/ab83e711/attachment.htm>

From ayden at ferdeline.com  Wed Jan  8 05:12:32 2020
From: ayden at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=)
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 10:12:32 +0000
Subject: [governance] New cooperative formed to take over .ORG Registry
 Agreement
Message-ID: <saVvoFZYqaSpLiEbAK_gMmIs4EsKFQIHyMNlgWQ-HDtHZQwWEntbMgBsF93T1VF6fz-5PH8zJo_yNtvjuh_7y9_AIWtlc4KP6ftQWAJ0WuI=@ferdeline.com>

Dear all,

For information purposes, please find below two different articles talking about a new cooperative that has been formed that seeks to take over the .ORG Registry Agreement from the Public Interest Registry (PIR). This cooperative forms an existential threat to the Internet Society, as they seek not to buy PIR, but to instead have their cash cow - the .ORG Registry Agreement - re-assigned to them by ICANN.

New York Times, 7 January 2020, 'Inside the Billion-Dollar Battle Over .Org',  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/technology/dot-org-private-equity-battle.html

- “This is a better alternative,” said Esther Dyson, who served as the first chair of ICANN, from 1998 to 2000, and is one of seven directors of the new cooperative. “If you’re owned by private equity, your incentive is to make a profit. Our incentive is to serve and protect nonprofits and the public.”

Reuters, 7 January 2020, 'Internet nonprofit leaders fight deal to sell control of .org domain', https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/reuters-america-internet-nonprofit-leaders-fight-deal-to-sell-control-of-org-domain.html?__source=sharebar|twitter&par=sharebar

- “There needs to be a place on the internet that represents the public interest, where educational sites, humanitarian sites, and organizations like Wikipedia can provide a broader public benefit,” said Katherine Maher, the CEO of Wikipedia parent Wikimedia Foundation, who signed on to be a director of the new nonprofit.

Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200108/24fc93c1/attachment.htm>

From amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in  Fri Jan 10 05:52:05 2020
From: amritachoudhury at ccaoi.in (Amrita)
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2020 16:22:05 +0530
Subject: [governance] CCAOI: IG Policy updates of 2019 from the Indian
 perspective
Message-ID: <026d01d5c7a4$000550d0$000ff270$@in>

Hi All,

 

For those who may be interested, sharing the link
<https://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwnewsletter/CCAOI%20Newsletter%20December%20
2019.pdf>   of the CCAOI December 2019 Newsletter, having  curated news on
Internet Governance  developments and policies in 2019 from the Indian
perspective.

 

Regards,

 

Amrita

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20200110/e3ba6d6c/attachment.htm>