From jefsey@jefsey.com Thu Oct 10 05:50:46 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D91611E815F for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:50:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oVCrMbqRwKW7 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F2411E8164 for ; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:53042 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VUFhN-0006Px-Do; Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:50:37 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 14:50:33 +0200 To: Milton L Mueller ,NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25001F6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.sy r.edu> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD25001F6@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131010125039.72F2411E8164@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: " , bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits" , iucg@ietf.org, governance@lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [iucg] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 12:50:46 -0000 At 07:26 10/10/2013, Milton L Mueller wrote: >I agree with you Rafik, harmony among ambitious “leaders” does >not mean that we have solved the problem of how to make Internet >governance responsive to Internet users. It is easy for ICANN’s >CEO, who would like more autonomy from the USG, to cozy up to >Brazil’s President, and in some ways it is a good initiative, >especially following the Uruguay declaration, which indicates that >the world’s multistakeholder organizations agree with the >longstanding position of the Internet Governance Project that the >privileged US position over the DNS root should be ended. But that >is just one small step, and we have to avoid letting the media >attention focus exclusively on “leaders” as if the controlled the internet. Milton, Here, I certainly agree with you, Rafik, and some others. I understand that as an academic you do not want to commit to any position at this stage. I have been on the OpenUse strategic side for 35 years, and have been directly engaged in this process. I would be very, very surprised if Fadi and Dilma have agreed upon something which was not well prepared in advance (John Curan reminded the IANA NTIA NOI) and endorsed in Montevideo (when all of these people left the US the NTIA was not shutdown, and by any means it is not shot-down) and closely monitored (supported ?) on the European PRISM. Now, my only question is: what is good in there for OpenUse? I think it is too soon to tell. We need to study the flaws and the leaks of the next five steps: - cyberSeoul - the High-Level ethitechnic meeting - the Bali outcome - reactions to Neelie Kroes call - the ISOC response to my RFC 6852 appeal (I will only send it after Bali for it to be the most useful to all). We now have USSH (US Stake Holders) Inc. with the OECD and Brazil as clients. This is a commercial and political reshuffling between Dubai and Montevideo signatories. This may lead to a USSH monopoly or failure, a USSH/ITU alliance (my old ITU-I proposition?) or war, an NRO monopoly or the emergence of NRObis. I do not think that this is our priority, however. Our priority is more probably the clarification that we are starting to observe among ourselves between "civil society" leaders interested in pure, old human rights, ready to negotiate agreements, and the "digital society" members who also are interested in the practicalities of digitally extended human rights and in carving them in the "source code". Because "code is law". jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Fri Oct 11 16:33:02 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A3C21F8DA3 for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.641 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.641 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_20=-0.74, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KZAgNuw711RD for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C85DC21F9ECA for ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:64309 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VUmCV-000669-SQ; Fri, 11 Oct 2013 16:32:56 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2013 01:32:49 +0200 To: "michael gurstein" ,iucg@ietf.org,iutf@iutf.org From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283D6D@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B283E7E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <103d01cec56b$f50a7980$df1f6c80$@gmail.com> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <000c01cec602$c79d4490$56d7cdb0$@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131011233257.C85DC21F9ECA@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: 'NCSG List' , bestbits@lists.bestbits.net, governance@lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [iucg] Digital Society [was Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014] X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 23:33:02 -0000 At 23:50 10/10/2013, michael gurstein wrote:
My take is that many in the technical community are feeling appalled and
betrayed by what they/we have learned through Snowden. 

Dear Michael,

Thank you for your analysis. I think this is very important, if we want to proceed positively, to identify, know and understand better each others. To that end I will try to maintain this note and make an IETF Draft of it. Comments are welcome.

Actually, the so called "technical community" case is critical as its members detain (along late Peter de Blancs [ccTLD Chair at Marina de Rey, 2000 ICANN meeting] well known response to Mike Robert, as an a-parte to me) the keys of the nuclear arsenal of which ICANN tries now for 13 years to prevent us to use. Something we are extremely cautious about, and now we feel we have to review due to the loss of IAB architectonical neutral guidance.

This calls for an architectonic decision. This memo explains this decision.


The background

If you consider the IETF experience and terminology there are four kinds of people who are technically concerned by  the internet (cf. RFC 3935 which defines the mission of the IETF based on three decades of experience). I use to call them the net keepers:

(1) those who influence by their documentation,
(2) those who design,
(3) those who use, and
(4) those who manage the internet.

In your post, you implicitly refer to the first category which currently has the focus, because some (cf. RFC 6852) want it to switch:

- from the neutral and democratic (yet not specifically defined) goal of making the Internet work better strictly subject to documented values (RFC 3935).

- to the consideration of the economics of global markets, where the deployment of standards is regardless of their formal status and is to contribute[s] to the creation of new markets and the growth and expansion of existing markets in foster[ing] global competition.


Personal involvements

I understand that you yourself belong to the fourth one, while most of the people on this list belong to the third one. What is discussed today is the behavior of the members of the second category, who design and shape the internet mostly on political premises.

To fully understand what will happen, one has to consider the people from the first category, those who technically influence. There are four classes:

1. the professionals paid by a corporation or an academy.
2. the people voluntarily working for the people in the application area,
3. the people voluntarily researching and developing in the network system area.
4. the lead users able to adapt their digital environment to their needs.

Motivations

All of them enjoy the "joy of solving technical problems" you mention, ethitechnically if possible because it respects their values and is more difficult and, therefore, more fun. None of the seasoned ones have learned anything technical through Snowden: they only have been informed about the (sometimes odd or old) ways some of the things were implemented by one of the leading intelligence centers (a significant part of them is directly or indirectly an on intelligence center payroll).

Concerns and capacities

1. "Class #1 people" perform paid work. Their position has been well documented by the IAB in RFC 3869 and their ethic in RFC 3935. These RFCs seem to be contradicted by RFC 6852.
 
2. "Class #2 people" are not really concerned by the network issues.
 
3. "Class #3 people" number not so many. Their main concern is the innovation limitations imposed by the Class #1 culture. This is partly described in RFC 3774. Pioneers know that the true technical problems are the architectonical complexity (exciting to explore) and the political, economic, international, societal usual hysteresis that some of them are now able to scientifically theorize.
 
4. "Class #4 people" will be able to move the world when they reach a critical mass.

- FLOSS made them hope that they could join class #1 through ICANN (@large) and/or IETF (http://iucg.org/wiki), etc. but they faced more interfacing problems there than class #3 people.
- Then they hoped that Civil Society could help but there is too much politicalese.
- Govts try to help them but usually through too much bureaucracy.
-  An ITU-I could actually be their best bet. But ITU demands big budgets.
 

Architectonical esthetic

As "Class #4 people" reach criticality in terms of size, exposure, available tools, etc. some of them realize that they are still a small and emerging but key fifth multistakeholder group by their own, forming the "Digital Society" with its own solutions, interests and most of all esthetic (a people centered, caractre humain, centrada en la persona as Tunis proclaimed it to be compared with the RFC 6852 FRAND esthetic [fair terms may vary from royalty-free to fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND)] ), 
 
They understand that they form a group that can only grow. This group has tried over the years to document a technical ethic toward their esthetic when designing, operating, and managing the world digital ecosystem. To that end, its members dutifully participated in the GNSO, IDNHO, icannatlarge.org, various ICANN @large lists, the IGF, and civil society. They havebserved for 14 years, since Sotiris Sotiropoulos' initial proposition of working out a 33rd HR article on digital human rights, that no one but themselves could understand and document the technical, architectural and architectectonic roots of this cause and pragmatically advance it in the source where it belongs ("code is law") for the common good of all.


Identification by the other stakeholders

This is probably the major lesson of the current civil society exchanges. Civil Society shows its limits in terms of influence and decision capacity. However, while they only represent a limited number of non-operative activists, they are seriously considered by key people in charge of real operations (RIR CEOs are acknowledged managers heading internet critical organizations) that "USSH inc." (US StakeHolders, Incorporated) has delegated to inform and hear Civil Society.

This happens while people with digital needs, concerns, uses, budgets (private or small businesses), and most of all innovative solutions, are not listened to, not even by the IETF which genuinely tried to welcome them but is not adapted to their proceedings. This is something that must change if the whole digital ecosystem is to reach equilibrium.


The common priority

The priority for all of us is, therefore, to get:
 
- the Digital Society identified as such (those who attend to the digital sphere of our world) and acknowledged by all,
- its 4 classes listened to and supported until it shares in the MS leadership of our world.
- This Digital Society to structure itself to better understand and help to more intelligently use the common interest capacities of the world digital ecosystem toward a sustainable development for all (including the USSH clients).

This seems to become a practical necessity when we observe the difficulties encountered by the four classical multistakeholder groups alone. This necessity has been acknowledged by ICANN and Brazil in considering that Telcos are members of the family. So are the IUsers (intelligent network users).

A preliminary analysis seems to indicate that the needs are:

- a polycratic cooperation of openness-oriented projects, coalitions, and people
- a brain/bot referential registry
- an Open Research and Development concerted (not centrally coordinated) cooperation
- open funding information
- the establishment of mutual relations with the members of the four other multistakeholder groups.

A concerted review toward an OpenUse initiative will be undertaken in the coming weeks by digital society stakeholders.

jfc
 


These are folks who
helped build the tech of  the Internet not for dotcom millions or to support
one foreign/security policy or another but rather because they believed that
the capacity for networking and communications that they were enabling would
contribute to human betterment (and I would guess, for the sheer joy of
solving the technical problems involved.

They more than anyone else now feel the sting of betrayal both professional
(what were they building) and personal (who was telling them the truth and
who wasn't) and they even more than others realize how much of the Internet
was built on trust and continues to operate on the basis of trust, how
fragile trust is, how quickly it disappears and how difficult it is to
rebuild it (and whatever else relies on it) when it is gone.

The notice from the EFF concerning its withdrawal from the GNI, I just
circulated is perhaps the first among many such formal withdrawals of trust
and long term collaborations because of what has been revealed by Snowden
but most definitely not the last.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: McTim [ mailto:dogwallah@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Raul Echeberria
Cc: governance@lists.igcaucus.org; Carlos A. Afonso; michael gurstein; Lee W
McKnight; Rafik Dammak; Joana Varon; &lt,bestbits@lists.bestbits.net&gt,;
NCSG List
Subject: Re: [governance] [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host
world event on Internet governance in 2014

Raul,


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Raul Echeberria <raul@lacnic.net> wrote:
>
>
> Carlos:
>
> I agree with you that the President Rousseff position is of course not
based on the Montevideo statement. It should be very very arrogant to think
that.

as well as not physically possible (unless you had a time machine).

My point to Carlos and MG was that the T&A are taking the lead on this in
the spirit of "continuing cooperation".

My reaction was also motivated by Jeremy saying;

"It also neutralises the effect of the old guard of the technical community
(ISOC mainly) at the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation."

Which is 180 degrees different from my analysis. It seems to me that ISOC
and the other Montevideo signatories are stronger in the WGEC becasue of
these 2 events.

Would it be possible to disclose if the Summit was discussed in Montevideo?

--
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route
indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 04:49:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C9311E813F for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.091 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.091 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BiGJx33Yok3X for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F59B21F9AE6 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:58985 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VVKAs-0007Rd-9z; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 04:49:30 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 13:49:26 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Anriette Esterhuysen , governance@lists.igcaucus.org,parminder From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131013114933.5F59B21F9AE6@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: "bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits" , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 11:49:47 -0000 At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Valid point Parminder. 
By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that...

Then ?...

It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter.

If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilmas Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that:

- I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on  1983 architectural  statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo.
- I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism.
- If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two?

Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours?

Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazils President?

What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) peoples positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos interests? Why dont we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us?

This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time.

Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyones thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need.

NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo).

Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net).

Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it?

A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANNs own documents)?

Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives.

jfc

parminder

Anriette

On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote:
Anja +1

We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics.

I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong...

regards

Robert


--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom
Email: rguerra@privaterra.org

On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue.

Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force.

Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that  we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF.

My two paise,
Anja




On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:
Parminder < parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:
> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is
> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I
> havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any
> political act carries risk.
Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries
more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the
certainty of losing that opportunity.
Greetings,
Norbert
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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





-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
anriette@apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692





-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
anriette@apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
From joao.caribe@me.com Sun Oct 13 08:29:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0CE11E8118 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.902 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bTrP8zk1-LVI for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:29:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from st11p09mm-asmtp001.mac.com (st11p09mm-asmtp001.mac.com [17.164.24.96]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C4521F9CAE for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:29:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.25.9] (177.98.1.dynamic.adsl.gvt.net.br [177.98.1.97]) by st11p09mm-asmtp001.mac.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-27.08(7.0.4.27.7) 64bit (built Aug 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0MUM003245OBLP40@st11p09mm-asmtp001.mac.com> for iucg@ietf.org; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:29:04 +0000 (GMT) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.10.8794,1.0.431,0.0.0000 definitions=2013-10-13_01:2013-10-11, 2013-10-13, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=43 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1308280000 definitions=main-1310130076 Sun-Java-System-SMTP-Warning: Lines longer than SMTP allows found and wrapped. References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256A75A.2090606@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <20131011183443.5bd03675@quill> <"CAJqNAHA6WqMS0zsWpU82tsXwxFZuc4R_m5aUtoa7EVX+SG7... <52583B47.5050102@apc.org> <52584283.3070103@itforchange.net> <525848D1.3070404@apc.org> <20131013114945.D8DC221800D@a2knetwork.org> In-reply-to: <20131013114945.D8DC221800D@a2knetwork.org> MIME-version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-C63DAF1F-32BD-4C35-BD91-922A0ABDBC22 Message-id: X-Mailer: iPad Mail (11A501) From: "=?utf-8?Q? Jo=C3=A3o_Carlos_R._Carib=C3=A9 ?=" Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 12:29:00 -0300 To: JFC Morfin X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 08:53:30 -0700 Cc: "iutf@iutf.org" , Anriette Esterhuysen , "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" , "bestbits@lists.bestbits.net Bits" , "iucg@ietf.org" , parminder Subject: Re: [iucg] [bestbits] Do we really want to shoot in Dilma's foot? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 15:30:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail-C63DAF1F-32BD-4C35-BD91-922A0ABDBC22 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the initiati= ve come from civil society, understand:=20 Until a few months ago, Dilma had another position, followed the advice of t= he Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernardo, that follow the agenda of tel= ecom companies.=20 Many activists, including me, and opinion leaders criticized the posture of P= aul Bernardo, also we decided to criticize Dilma, since in practice, the adh= erence to the agenda of telecom companies was the government's position, and= not only the ministry. Considering the popularity of Rousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstra= tions in the streets, which were heavily exploited by the opposition to weak= en it politically. This new opposition coming from the Internet could be tra= gic for his project of re-election in 2014. After conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Frank= lin Martins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much o= f his speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the interna= tional community, as we know. Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder model, an= d thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of the U.S.= government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech at the U= N, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to seize t= his window of opportunity that open. And that we have to face, a window of opportunity, we from the civil society= have to position ourselves as protagonists behind this "wave", because we k= now that bad decisions that could change the internet as we know, it may ari= se, and this time we have to act together and strengthened to rebate. My $0,02 - Jo=C3=A3o Carlos Carib=C3=A9 (021) 8761 1967 (021) 4042 7727 Skype joaocaribe Enviado via iPad > Em 13/10/2013, =C3=A0s 08:49, JFC Morfin escreveu: >=20 > At 20:52 11/10/2013, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> Valid point Parminder.=C3=82 =20 >>> By then it will be a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Braz= ilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil s= ociety... And it wont change after that... >=20 > Then ?... >=20 > It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN a= s a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefor= e, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. T= o succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHo= lders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us i= n response to our first letter. >=20 > If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Br= azil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not= ) Dilma=E2=80=99s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, internatio= nal organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's= coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signa= tories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all o= f us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is name= d "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in econom= y, NATO in military), except that: >=20 > - I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosys= tem because it is based on 1983 architectural statUS-quo that is to protec= t a market and political statUS-quo. > - I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a prac= tical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The= world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care o= f. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism. > - If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who wou= ld in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking b= y ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two? >=20 > Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic g= overnance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NS= A was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret age= ncy that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours? >=20 > Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil=E2=80= =99s President?=20 >=20 > What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malia= n, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people=E2=80=99s positi= ons and societal, industrial, and Telcos=E2=80=99 interests? Why don=E2=80=99= t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? W= hy do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of u= s?=20 >=20 > This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilaterali= stic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area,= this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all= those having a stake in the US private sector) =E2=80=93 actually both as w= e saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We know that none of them could be sus= tainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try t= o work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakehol= der, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal= of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time. >=20 > Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy.= Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try t= o understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incomple= tion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hystere= sis) confuse us, pollute everyone=E2=80=99s thinking, and deny all of us the= experience that we need. >=20 > NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current envir= onment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo)= .=20 >=20 > Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that t= here is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for int= ernational societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word= out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (= not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the d= igital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net)= .=20 >=20 > Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have t= o consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and glo= bally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension d= o we want? How do we achieve and protect it? >=20 > A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting I= CANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rig= hts as per the Internet technology (and ICANN=E2=80=99s own documents)?=20 >=20 > Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circum= stances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to bette= r pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives. >=20 > jfc >=20 >>> parminder=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Anriette >>>>=20 >>>>> On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>>> Anja +1=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of n= ot engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics= .=C3=82=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> I worry at the level of=C3=82 exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fea= r , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far bet= ter resourced actors that ultimately =C3=82 will result in a very different ,= more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled o= n. I hope I'm wrong... >>>>>=20 >>>>> regards >>>>>=20 >>>>> Robert >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> -- >>>>> R. Guerra >>>>> Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 >>>>> Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom=C3=82=20 >>>>> Email: rguerra@privaterra.org >>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succe= ssion, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list,= CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I a= m concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rou= sseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue.=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The poin= t is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten day= s time will have more force.=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are o= ther ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that=C3=82= we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, incl= uding by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whe= ther we can work with them on this through the IGF.=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> My two paise, >>>>>> Anja >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>>> Parminder < parminder@itforchange.net> wrote: >>>>>> > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight i= s >>>>>> > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I >>>>>> > havent been told the risk - and beyond =C3=82 a point, just about a= ny >>>>>> > political act carries risk. >>>>>> Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries >>>>>> more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the >>>>>> certainty of losing that opportunity. >>>>>> Greetings, >>>>>> Norbert >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 governance@lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> --=20 >>>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in=20 >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 governance@lists.igcaucus.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance= >>>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>>>>> =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> --=20 >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen >>>> anriette@apc.org >>>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 >>>> 1692 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen >> anriette@apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 >> 1692 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >> Content-Disposition: inline; filename=3D"message-footer.txt" >>=20 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance@lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>=20 >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>=20 >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t --Apple-Mail-C63DAF1F-32BD-4C35-BD91-922A0ABDBC22 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I fully agree with the JFC Morfin, and say more like Brazilian, the in= itiative come from civil society, understand: 

Until a few months ago, Dilma had another p= osition, followed the advice of the Minister of Communications, Paulo Bernar= do, that follow the agenda of telecom companies. 

Many activists, including me, and opin= ion leaders criticized the posture of Paul Bernardo, also we decided to crit= icize Dilma, since in practice, the adherence to the agenda of telecom compa= nies was the government's position, and not only the ministry.
<= div>
Considering the popularity of R= ousseff had fallen a lot during the demonstrations in the streets, which wer= e heavily exploited by the opposition to weaken it politically. This new opp= osition coming from the Internet could be tragic for his project of re-elect= ion in 2014.
Afte= r conversation with his predecessor, Lula, Dilma became advised by Franklin M= artins, and during this process she met with CGI.Br where she got much of hi= s speech at the UN. This speech that won strong support from the internation= al community, as we know.

Also we know that ICANN strives to strengthen its multistakeholder m= odel, and thus distance themselves from the image of being an "appendix" of t= he U.S. government. Realizing the opportunity arose after Rousseff's speech a= t the UN, Fadi and his counselors come immediately to meet our President to s= eize this window of opportunity that open.

And that we have to face, a window of opportunity,= we from the civil society have to position ourselves as protagonists behind= this "wave", because we know that bad decisions that could change the inter= net as we know, it may arise, and this time we have to act together and stre= ngthened to rebate.

My $0,02

<= /div>
-
Jo=C3=A3o Carlos Carib=C3=A9
(021) 8761 1967
(021) 4042 7727
Skype joa= ocaribe
Enviado via iPad

Em 13/10/2013, =C3=A0s 08:49, JFC Morfin <= jefsey@jefsey.com> escreveu:
=
Valid point Parminder.=C3= =82 
By then it will be a Braz= ilian initiative supported by ICANN, not a Brazilian initiative supported by ICANN and a considerable part of global civil society... And it wont change after that...

Then ?...

It is an NTIA (or NTIA endorsed/concerted) initiative, presented by ICANN as a response to Dilma's UN speech, that Dilma could not refuse and, therefore, everyone must pretend that it is her initiative in line with her speech. To succeed, Dilma needs us. Not now, when the initiative is led by US StakeHolders inc. + Telcos (including Brazilians), but rather when they call on us in response to our first letter.

If we support ICANN (NTIA + Brazil Telcos) now, we fail people, the US, Brazil, and Dilma. The summit must be perceived as coming from (what it is not) Dilma=E2=80=99s Brazil (Civil Society, OpenUse, Private sector, international organizations, IGF, UN and OpenStand+ICANN), otherwise it will be NTIA's coup against the UN (all countries) in coopetition with the ITU Dubai-signatories (i.e. Russia, China, and possibly Europe[?] as a liaison), using all of us. I have nothing against the US "e-colonization" strategy (which is named "internationalization" in the normative area, e.g. Unicode; OECD in economy, NATO in military), except that:

- I do not think it can bring enough stability to the world digital ecosystem because it is based on  1983 architectural  statUS-quo that is to protect a market and political statUS-quo.
- I oppose "globalization" being used as a policy. Globalization is a practical fact that raises problems (economic crisis, global warming, etc.). The world's uncontrolled globalization is a pandemic that has to be taken care of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization#Support_and_criticism.
- If I was wrong. If the initiative was not sponsored by the NTIA: who would in this scenario protect the rights of the USG against an IGH hijacking by ICANN and Brazil? How could the CS rebuild the world only with those two?

Technically, the problem is that the big-data pollution anti-algorithmic governance shield of this strategy was the NSA. Snowden has shown that the NSA was no longer technically/professionally reliable. The NSA is a secret agency that is not able to protect its own secrets. What about ours?

Question: why do we only talk of the US StakeHolders Inc. and Brazil=E2=80=99= s President?

What about the Chinese, Russian, European, French, Indian, Tunisian, Malian, Liechtenstienian, or Palauan (smallest UN member) people=E2=80=99s positions and societal, industrial, and Telcos=E2=80=99 interests? Why don=E2= =80=99t we discuss the US citizens' democratic feeling on internet globalization? Why do we never ask around and just discuss the opinions of the happy few of us?

This is most probably because a global democracy can only be multilateralistic (the UN) or imperialistic and colonialistic (a dominance). In our area, this means ITU or statUSSH-quo (the status-quo that benefits the US and all those having a stake in the US private sector) =E2=80=93 actually both as we saw in Dubai and now in Montevideo. We= know that none of them could be sustainable as they would resurrect the cold war. Actually what we should try to work out is a multicultural, multilinguistic, multinational, multistakeholder, open and, therefore, non-communitarian global societal equivalent ideal of the democratic ideal, i.e. an esthetic for our global and digital time.

Such a form of global governance has a name: it is to be called polycracy. Some of its rules were identified by the WSIS. However, while we still try to understand the way they work and discover its best practices, its incompletion and lack of enhanced cooperation (by the ICANN, RIRs, OpenStand hysteresis) confuse us, pollute everyone=E2=80=99s thinking, and deny all of us the experience that we need.

NB. Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment (real post-Dubai world) but also on its past environment (statUS-quo).

Let us take enough time for reflection: USSH Inc. states in RFC 6852 that there is a new modern industrial/normative paradigm. This is the same for international societal norms, relations, and tools: we have to discuss and word out the new human and digital rights paradigm and impose them in the facts (not necessarily through Anonymous exploits, but more adequately through the digital artifacts that we design, open-code, pay, and use for and on the net).

Politically, Civil Society and the Digital Society (OpenUse) do not have to consider political strategies, but rather civil and digital rights and globally constitutional (architectonic) issues. Which world digital extension do we want? How do we achieve and protect it?

A simple test to check if what I am saying is correct: before supporting ICANN, what did we obtain from ICANN in terms of open-roots globalization rights as per the Internet technology (and ICANN=E2=80=99s own documents)?

Send Dilma, Fadi, and copy Ban Ki-moon and the world that under the circumstances we are ready to discuss anything with anyone who would want to better pursue the WSIS and digital millenium objectives.

jfc

parminder

Anriette

On 11/10/2013 19:29, Robert Guerra wrote:
Anja +1

We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics.=C3=82

I worry at the level of=C3=82 exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as= has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately =C3=82 will result in a very different , mo= re state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong...

regards

Robert


--
R. Guerra
Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081
Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom=C3=82 <= br> Email: rguerra@privaterra.org

= On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:

When civil society writes= too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue.

Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force.

Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that=C3=82&nbs= p; we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF.

My two paise,
Anja




On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow <nb@bollow.ch> wrote:=20
Parminder < parminder@itforchange.net> wrote:=20
> You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is=20
> good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here= I=20
> havent been told the risk - and beyond =C3=82 a point, just ab= out any=20
> political act carries risk.=20
Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries=20
more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the=20=
certainty of losing that opportunity.=20
Greetings,=20
Norbert
____________________________________________________________=20
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:=20
=C3=82  =C3=82  =C3=82 governance@lists.igcaucus.org=20
To be removed from the list, visit:=20
=C3=82  =C3=82  =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing=20
For all other list information and functions, see:=20
=C3=82  =C3=82  =C3=82 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance=20
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:=20
=C3=82  =C3=82  =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/=20
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 governance@lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
=C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 =C3=82 http://www.igcaucus.org/

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





--=20
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
anriette@apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692





--=20
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen
anriette@apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726
1692
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename=3D"message-footer.txt"

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
= --Apple-Mail-C63DAF1F-32BD-4C35-BD91-922A0ABDBC22-- From jefsey@jefsey.com Sun Oct 13 17:16:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0052521E8156 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:16:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.541 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.541 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4bzLx4CzgWT3 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AEE021E814A for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:16:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:55629 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VVVpW-0006cF-J6; Sun, 13 Oct 2013 17:16:15 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:16:10 +0200 To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow , governance@lists.igcaucus.org,Anja Kovacs From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131014001615.3AEE021E814A@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 00:16:27 -0000 Dear Norbert,

I am afraid that repeating your position and stating that you will repeat it again for the last time is not a consensus but rather influence :-).
Also, stating that your opponents have to put their political situation at risk if they wish to oppose you, while you dont risk yours, sounds like an abuse of a dominant position !!!
Ouhaou! This does not sound like you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus : Consensus decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of all participants. 

At 14:27 13/10/2013, Norbert Bollow wrote:
The precise definition of consensus is lack of sustained opposition.

This is an IETF rough consensus.
Anyway, the dissensus on consensus definition is as old as the ICANN and IG debate.

That is what it means, not more, not less. If some people are strongly
in favor and no-one is sufficiently strongly opposed to sustain
opposition (and depending on the circumstances possibly spend political
capital in doing so), in a consensus process that results in a decision
in favor.

Is it not risky to state such a thing on a list that is watch by opposing interests? If we are truly preparing a global summit, let get real: several Agencies have a copy of our mails.

If consensus meant that every single person has to be in favor, most
organizations that use consensus-based decision processes would never
reach any decisions.

Expressing a consensus means describing in a consensual decision in a way that every single participant agrees on the way it is worded. If a single position is documented this is a consensus, if several positions as well as the way they decided to mutually relate is documented, it is a multi-consensus. If the mutual relations have not been agreed on, this is a disagreement. Otherwise, this is a dissensus.

At this stage, the situation that we have reached is a dissensus.

> we are effectively working against each other here.

Unless you mean what may possibly have been an implied demand in some of
the postings, that IGC should shut up because BestBits is going to
discuss the topic at the upcoming meeting and then take some action, I
strongly disagree with the view that we are effectively working
against each other here.

In my view, the proposed letter of IGC and whoever else will co-sign it
does not in any way reduce the effectiveness of the planned BestBits
action. Quite on the contrary, in my view, without the first letter it
could very easily be the case that by the time of the BestBits letter it
could be too late and the entire action might be ineffective. I do
understand that you see and/or weigh the risks differently.

> I wanted to thank Mawaki, therefore, for his efforts to find an
> alternative. If that could be a solution for all

No, that is not a solution at all from my perspective, and since I've
already explained the reasons in detail why I think that the present
letter needs to be addressed to President Rousseff, I'll not repeat
them again.

I observe that there are several opposing strategies. The lack of coordination between these strategies is detrimental to everyone, except to the interests that I identify as gathered within USSH Inc. (the US StakeHolders, incorporated in Montevideo).

However, I do not think it is a superficial problem. It is architectonical, that is to say related to the very nature of what underlays the digital reality. The difference is between those who consider that:

- either it can be dealt with through politics (i.e. "the art of commanding free people") because it is a political maneuver.
- or it is deeper because structural civilizational interests are at stake (a "coup" by ICANN against the WSIS and the ITU majority) to impose the Telcos market and radical monopolies against the control of States. 

In my case, this leads me to identify that I can neither trust:

- Governments, because their protection of me, as a citizen, is the NSA and its different national equivalent yet they are unable to protect their own secrets.

- the private sector (the Montevidean signatories), because they are disloyal to their own multistakeholderism and, therefore, more probably to their own FRAND sales terms.

- the international organizations, because they have no legitimacy other than the support from everyone by everyone. At this stage (1) ITU is divided and (2) this division leads to confusion through this possible non-UN accepted counter-summit by ICANN/Brazil, where USSH inc. attempts to trap the ITU majority that Brazil belongs to ( http://www.itu.int/osg/wcit-12/highlights/signatories.html).

- Civil Society, because it shows here that it has neither the necessary multistakeholderist structure to explore, express, and sustain a consensus nor the practical capacity to significantly influence the other multistakeholder groups. I discover also that it is under influence: it wants to send consensual letters when there is no consensus.

This means that I can only trust the machines that we all use because "code is law" when we all are to use the same code. This means that the only law that can be enforced is a "net open code" by all and for all. I note that this actually is the internet normative paradigm from the very beginning [what people remember as democratic] that USSH inc. tries to change to the advantage of some.

This definitly means that instead of talking about the ways to regulate the use of a politically constrained digital architecture, the time has come to free the code within its existing architecture - by its acknowledged open use (as documented in RFC 5895) and, if necessary, to question that architecture if it does not turn out to be safe/open enough for our human digital rights, in particular our digital rights to innovation and protection. Since IAB has decided to quit as a technical guidance neutral referent (RFC 6852), the alternative can only be a grassroots alternative.

In such a case, there is no more dissensus between us but a possible cooperation between two endeavors, one oriented toward Human Rights and the other more specifically toward Human Digital Rights. 

Best
jfc







From prvs=0999745105=wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 14 02:19:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 866F021F9B08 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:19:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SUBJ_ALL_CAPS=2.077] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VUtVnHtFB1hG for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate5.urz.uni-halle.de (mailgate5.urz.uni-halle.de [141.48.3.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11A4C21F9C83 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 02:19:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-halle.de; s=uhal1dkim; h=To:From:References:Message-id:Date:Subject; bh=n8N2QUBbi96295gGz8eZwUMIpJ1+EMjn4Me0qwskZG4=; b=ps+MZGZ529E97kq4dFJRSV6rgd9QugTjETO7R7jwrLlTWQvzmoaxFhBxd5ogN9OZ9eKV4OQn/e4s8/SVYZQRGDSnDvII/C5188beigS2xgFYbPTQAGJKX6OPDLrPiEAu0FKH9gkBqkHq4+Uy+rjydBzmfC5FTEdUw91BpjLF6HA=; Received: from mserv3.urz.uni-halle.de ([141.48.3.161]) by mlucom18.urz.uni-halle.de with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1VVeJC-0005ig-Cp ; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:19:26 +0200 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de ([141.48.60.51]) by mail.uni-halle.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-16.01 (built Sep 30 2011; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0MUN00C18J7BPB10@mail.uni-halle.de>; Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:18:47 +0200 (CEST) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 11:16:46 +0200 Message-id: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013320CB@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: USA FREEDOM ACT? Thread-index: Ac7Ict5cTTeLaZ7iQ+qfAy5ME1BnjwASzyHX References: <5255CEA1.4060103@cafonso.ca> <5256DFC2.7010409@cafonso.ca> <147801cec5e2$83474590$89d5d0b0$@gmail.com> <52578D55.50605@itforchange.net> <52578F0F.50905@itforchange.net> <52579596.4090601@itforchange.net> <52582596.305@itforchange.net> <5258ECB0.4090500@itforchange.net> <525A4126.6080304@itforchange.net> <20131013085859.0a62e82b@quill> <20131013142742.47a9c405@quill> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?= To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, JFC Morfin , governance@lists.igcaucus.org, Norbert Bollow , governance@lists.igcaucus.org, Anja Kovacs X-Scan-Signature: 4b1133cd2dfdf66b32e3a5ee0d34970c X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 07:50:22 -0700 Cc: iucg@ietf.org Subject: [iucg] USA FREEDOM ACT? X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 09:46:01 -0000 FYI http://www.cato.org/events/nsa-surveillance-what-we-know-what-do-about-it Sensenbrenner proposes "Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-Collection, and Online Monitoring Act" (USA FREEDOM Act). Wolfgang From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Oct 26 11:18:29 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9EF11E81CE for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:18:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.371, BAYES_50=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gfo-bynem5cJ for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:18:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8FC211E819F for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:18:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from i03v-62-35-238-138.d4.club-internet.fr ([62.35.238.138]:59591 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Va8RK-000382-4O; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:18:22 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 20:18:00 +0200 To: IDNA update work From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <20130826181857.2066E39E170@eikenes.alvestrand.no> References: <52124960.2080905@stpeter.im> <9B194C30AF1839167A9EA490@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <5215CD28.8010303@mozilla.org> <5215EFBF.10706@mozilla.org> <92EA91C5B1632C567761E75A@JcK-HP8200.jck.com> <2013082614265176828363@cnnic.cn> <20130826181857.2066E39E170@eikenes.alvestrand.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131026181823.D8FC211E819F@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: "PUBLIC-IRI@W3.ORG" , iucg@ietf.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] Zie kommen ! X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:18:29 -0000 http://www.icann.org/en/news/press/releases/release-23oct13-en jfc From jefsey@jefsey.com Sat Oct 26 17:09:45 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCDB111E821D for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:09:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.909 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.683, BAYES_50=0.001, GB_SUMOF=5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7uZ8qbmntaqG for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sonic.altserver.com (sonic.altserver.com [72.34.37.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F41D21F9FC8 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-c10k03-v-62-35-238-138.dsl.sta.abo.bbox.fr ([62.35.238.138]:53705 helo=MORFIN-PC.jefsey.com) by sonic.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1VaDvD-0004hd-F5; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 17:09:36 -0700 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.1.0.9 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:09:32 +0200 To: Pranesh Prakash , From: JFC Morfin In-Reply-To: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> References: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - sonic.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: sonic.altserver.com: authenticated_id: jefsey+jefsey.com/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed Message-Id: <20131027000941.1F41D21F9FC8@ietfa.amsl.com> Cc: iucg@ietf.org, "governance@lists.igcaucus.org" , iutf@iutf.org Subject: Re: [iucg] [bestbits] Joint Statement of Civil Society Delegates to the 2013 Internet Governance Forum X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 00:09:45 -0000 At 10:15 26/10/2013, Pranesh Prakash wrote:
The 2013 IGF provided a valuable space for the members of our group to engage with other stakeholder groups, through the Forums sessions and also through side meetings and

Dear Pranesh,

We have to be conceptually coherent. The WSIS has documented a fractal multi-stakeholderism, i.e. distributed, multilayered, and subject to rules that are independent from the scale and size of the considered areas and perspectives of the digisphere. This multi-stakeholderism was assigned to an enhanced cooperation process, gathering four perspectives, which are: (1) regalian or public area, (2) private or business sector, (3) international or multilateral bodies and (4) civil society or the people from all over the world.

At a time when, as never before in human history, man is surrounded by technology to the point that mechanical intelligence is integrated in the societal tissue and algorithmic governance through big data has been identified as a common government and business practice that progressively extend to everyone's life, man has never been less aware of the technical nature of his omnipresent technological environment.

You translate this fact in adding what you call the "technical community" to the four WSIS identified perspectives. This calls for comments and a definitive action.


To avoid a conceptual error

There is a danger of confusion: if "technical community" was taken at a conceptual level, it would be an error. There are at least four main reasons why:

1. it would depart from the WSIS consensus and, therefore, abandoning its legitimacy.

2. it would result from the pressure of a global coup, led by a non-technical monopoly attempt (ICANN) of which the by-laws conflict with the concept of enhanced cooperation.

3. it would not translate today's reality in its whole, where people have personal and collective needs in the digital area (digisphere) that are addressed:

- by artifacted pervasive responses (technology) delivered by a whole set of stakeholders scientific and technical  branches.

-  via the people's intelligent use (IUse) of these multiple-layers-multiple-technologies
---  if they match the specifications issued, validated and propagated by their lead users.
---  and are favored by a propitious context nationally organized by Government and international by multilateral organizations, watched by Civil Society.

4. as per the "whole is larger than the sum of its parts" synergy principle this results in a wealth addition by a whole (WAW) network collective process (also called wholization) that is documented by the "Technical Coalition" members in their founding statement (RFC 6852) as a "huge bounty". Their sponsors are the stakeholders that want to share this huge bounty exclusively among them.
 

A strategy to complete

However, since we cannot share a complete, off the shelve digisphere wide consensus, I agree that a strategy is needed in order to best help the architectonical evolution of a world with a unified economy, scores of governments and international bodies, millions of businesses and billions of people. To efficiently match a fractal world we need a peer and/inter peer strategy that will be the same at every layer.
 
There is one that everyone understands and feels at ease with: the usual seller/buyer - provider/user - merchant/consumer dialog. In this strategy, which usually looks for a win/win outcome, one has to welcome, acknowledge, and match the initiated action with an equivalent reaction. 

In this case we are to:

- hear and possibly help the initiative of a multi-stakeholder (Govs, CS, Business and multilateral) "technical coalition" that seems to have a "statUS-quo" oriented vision and ISOC as a secretariat;

- and face it with its multi-stakeholder (Gov, CS, Business and multilateral) "market communities" forces, i.e. an "Open Intelligent Use" coalition able to cooperate with it and possibly others (the modern paradigm is to foster competition) on an equal footing basis.

cf. https://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Internet_Society_openness_and_susstainability-en.pdf


OpenIUse coalition

We, IUsers (IUCG@IETF), will read the documents that ISOC is to produce, as we would read any other business proposal. We are not in opposition but in the responsible buyer evaluation process of concerning a seriously prepared evolution of a broad worldwide success that has:

-          produced a "huge bounty"
-          but also participated in our current economic and trust crisis.

In order to best proceed, this process could be embodied in:

a)      three neutral by openness initiatives:
 
-          an OpenIUse wiki where everyone can share in the common evaluation process of what, technical or not, will be proposed,
-          a WIKIGF where the various possible technical and IUse sides can document their propositions and specifications on an equal footing.
-          a working Brazil Summit preparation wiki.

b)      a doctrinal clarification effort (that could lead to an IUCG independent contribution RFC) on the cyberspace architectonic concordance (complete architectural, operational and secure compatibility) in order to agree on the ways to make a people centered, multi-architectural, multilingual, multicultural, extended services and semiotic oriented innovative internet work better.


OpenIUse focus

I suppose our focus in reading the ISOC contribution will be on three main points:

1. the proposed scheme's reconsideration process concerning technical changes, precautions and respect of subsidiarity that may be asked. This is the matter of my RFC 6852 appeal, so ISOC will have to answer this openly.
 
2. the way the "huge bounty" would be shared. Since the networks earliest days (Doug Engelbart, Minitel, Tymnet), we experimented three partaking methods:

-          among some (the technical development sponsors), in order to "augment" their capacities.
-          as "commons" belonging to all and, therefore, managed by Governments,
-          to "extend" the digital capacity of every person, as proclaimed by the WSIS in calling for a people centered information society.
 
3. the architectonical esthetic of the Digisphere that the proposal will pursue and the resulting ethitechnics it will respect in order to protect the Human Digital Right to get:

-          the HR respected throughout the whole digital ecosystem,
-          a drastic reduction of the digital divide
-          the most adequate architectural design
-          open cyberspace technology
-          openuse of every technology
-          equal access through the support of every language
-          equal respect of every culture.
 
Special consideration will most probably paid to the protection of :
 
-          private, economic, and public secrecy
-          the intellectual rights and interests of the people in the architectonical Intelligent Use of the different technologies, data resources, normative agreements, by the people for the people (what some call "brainware", as a societal stratum continuation of the technology hardware and software strata)
-          most of all, the permitted and managed cooperative capacity for innovation in all these areas.


From prvs=0012a2d73c=wolfgang.kleinwaechter@medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 26 18:15:32 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: iucg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8606D11E8257 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:15:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.87 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.87 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.521, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IKVveAztPhJ7 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:15:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailgate5.urz.uni-halle.de (mailgate5.urz.uni-halle.de [141.48.3.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED1C11E8268 for ; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:15:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-halle.de; s=uhal1dkim; h=To:From:References:Message-id:Date:Subject; bh=8tdFhAns+emn2hIQ4IsxkVpAFxhVrOo2LzNO3giZeaM=; b=FG6gtb4zjpiIbebjlp4HweO4jYpVZnKi1biuHZbFLcCiBj0vxRsxHsUh1loCIziPHGNtyndqOI9eogg0zW+bRQkvGVWL44COO6/T5126jnh59SbqYBTKRXGOmYWXKQxT3U/02smKvoAzWBJ5JXryIJtbAB8s29UW02epP4BnTnQ=; Received: from mserv3.urz.uni-halle.de ([141.48.3.161]) by mlucom18.urz.uni-halle.de with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.80.1) id 1VaEwq-0005as-Lv ; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:15:20 +0100 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Received: from server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de ([141.48.60.51]) by mail.uni-halle.de (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-16.01 (built Sep 30 2011; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0MVA005NWZHHEK60@mail.uni-halle.de>; Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:15:17 +0100 (CET) Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 02:14:29 +0100 Message-id: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133213B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-topic: 2013 Internet Governance Forum Media Thread-index: Ac7SqOoJmGljvHvlQeWdqwtgLGbQ2AACPh9U References: <7595c5fbd1968bfdc5e1b219ede50ab3@cis-india.org> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?= To: governance@lists.igcaucus.org, JFC Morfin , Pranesh Prakash , bestbits@lists.igcaucus.org X-Scan-Signature: bb8a8a9606200d3c1a75f34ba3dc2cbc X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 08:50:22 -0700 Cc: iucg@ietf.org, governance@lists.igcaucus.org, iutf@iutf.org Subject: [iucg] 2013 Internet Governance Forum Media X-BeenThere: iucg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: internet users contributing group List-Id: internet users contributing group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:15:32 -0000 http://www.thejakartapost.com/bali-daily/2013-10-24/cyber-ethics-restoring-trust-internet-crucial.html FYI