From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 8 17:42:53 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:42:53 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Message-ID: Dear all The above event announcement that was sent yesterday raises some serious concerns in my opinion. The European IGF is pending since January 2008 when it was announced and unanimously adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg (see my report on this session sent to the euc list). Since nothing happened in the meantime, EuroDig -launched by some of our colleagues with the strong support of the Council of Europe in October 2008- questioned the two MEPs attending the meeting about the urgent necessity for -at last- setting up this European IGF as proposed by the final documents of the WSIS (i.e. multistakeholder based and open to CS). Both Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour gave their strong support to that. The "hearing" in Brussels mentioned below is likely to be the response of the EU Commission to our concerns. However it is very far from the European CS expectations for a couple of reasons, and therefore unacceptable for us. Among these reasons : First : It is published just one week before the meeting, thus placing CS organisations concerned before a "fait accompli", and therefore unable to prepare the meeting and coordinate different organisations for a fruitful participation. Second : There won't be any representative of the European CS in the discussion panels. In fact, these are organised "around" private sector speakers. Patrik Faltstrom who is alternatively a manager at Cisco, a represntative of the Swedish government or a NGO member (as chair or something like of a Swedish ICT users organisation), depending on the nature of the meeting, definitely isn't a CS representative ! Third : Restricting the role of the European CS, who is engaged in the WSIS process since its very beginning, to just being a possible single answerer to the EC or EP selected questions during a couple of minutes, is an obvious sign of contempt for all of its organisations and members. Moreover, this attitude of the Commission (with or without the EP's support) strongly infringes the framework and the procedures based on multistakeholder principles edicted by the WSIS and agreed on by all European governments in Tunis. At last, I'd kindly ask our politicians in Brussels to draw their inspiration from the sub-regional African IGFs which are organized and are working as asked for by the WSIS. I suggest them to ask their African counterparts for some advice and help. In the framework of the EU-ACP Agreement for instance. For all these reasons, I strongly ask EU CS to boycott such a meeting. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT Focal person to the EP of the European CS accredited to the WSIS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090408/79cf99c6/attachment.htm From jefsey at jefsey.com Wed Apr 8 21:54:18 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:54:18 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [Gov 643] Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20090408204503.6637954C158@gadolin.fsfeurope.org> Jean-Louis, je crois que notre probl?me est notre difficult? ? nous d?faire de notre attitude d'administr?s et ? devenir les co-administrateurs de la soci?t? de l'information. Il est vrai que les politiques n'ont pas beaucoup avanc?, et qu'ils tentent un peu de bacler une relance avec des gens qui ne sont pas n?cessairement nos meilleurs alli?s communs. Sur les six intervenants j'en compte quatre qui sont, au quotidien, des gens auxquels je m'oppose tr?s fortement car ils soutiennent, parfois de fa?on ... - mais ils ont l'argent et la force et nous n'avons que raison - une politique technologique et culturelle oppos?e ? celle que je conduis, pour la consid?rer comme de notre int?r?t, de celui de nos enfants, de notre pays et globalement de l'Europe, et finalement qui gagne. Certes, il est n?cessaire que tous aient voix au chapitre dans la recherche d'un consensus. Certes, cette r?union parviendra ais?ment ? un consensus anglo-saxon que nous connaissons bien, et qui n'est pas celui des europ?ens lorsqu'ils sont inform?s. En l'occurrence, il me semble que le Diable porte pierre. Si Mme Trautmann peut les utiliser pour aider le projet http://euro-igf.eu dans de meilleures conditions qu'une liste de diffusion citoyenne ? l'occasion des ?lections europ?ennes ... L'aspect critique qu'une telle liste pourrait avoir ("ils n'ont pas boug?" - cf. ce que tu dis tr?s bien ... ) pourrait ?tre ainsi remplac? par une attitude initiale plus positive. Nous avons trois forces qui s'opposent : les commer?ants, internationalisants; les politiques, diplomatisants; les utilisateurs pilotes, multilat?ralisants. Chacun ? ses positions de force : l'argent et l'implantation, les structures et la puissance r?galiennes, le savoir comment changer techniquement la donne pour une ?volution ?conomique majeure sans que les autres n'y puissent rien. Elles peuvent s'opposer, mais il est peu probable que dans un monde global, donc ferm?, la victoire de l'un ne soit pas sa defaite par contre-coup. C'est vrai que la soci?t? civile est encore - ? l'image et pas uniquement de Patrick (il faut de l'argent pour ?tre "civil") - pour l'instant trois vues de l'esprit, des politiques, des commer?ants et des universiatires. Elle doit choisir : soit contribuer de mani?re concr?te (peut ?tre comme conciliateur ?), soit choisir un camp et participer activement au jeu d'influence qu'est la recherche du consensus general. jfc france at large At 17:42 08/04/2009, jlfullsack wrote: >Dear all > >The above event announcement that was sent yesterday raises some >serious concerns in my opinion. > >The European IGF is pending since January 2008 when it was announced >and unanimously adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg >(see my report on this session sent to the euc list). Since nothing >happened in the meantime, EuroDig -launched by some of our >colleagues with the strong support of the Council of Europe in >October 2008- questioned the two MEPs attending the meeting about >the urgent necessity for -at last- setting up this European IGF as >proposed by the final documents of the WSIS (i.e. multistakeholder >based and open to CS). Both Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour >gave their strong support to that. > >The "hearing" in Brussels mentioned below is likely to be the >response of the EU Commission to our concerns. > >However it is very far from the European CS expectations for a >couple of reasons, and therefore unacceptable for us. Among these reasons : > >First : It is published just one week before the meeting, thus >placing CS organisations concerned before a "fait accompli", and >therefore unable to prepare the meeting and coordinate different >organisations for a fruitful participation. >Second : There won't be any representative of the European CS in the >discussion panels. In fact, these are organised "around" private >sector speakers. Patrik Faltstrom who is alternatively a manager at >Cisco, a represntative of the Swedish government or a NGO member (as >chair or something like of a Swedish ICT users organisation), >depending on the nature of the meeting, definitely isn't a CS representative ! >Third : Restricting the role of the European CS, who is engaged in >the WSIS process since its very beginning, to just being a possible >single answerer to the EC or EP selected questions during a couple >of minutes, is an obvious sign of contempt for all of its >organisations and members. Moreover, this attitude of the Commission >(with or without the EP's support) strongly infringes the framework >and the procedures based on multistakeholder principles edicted by >the WSIS and agreed on by all European governments in Tunis. > >At last, I'd kindly ask our politicians in Brussels to draw their >inspiration from the sub-regional African IGFs which are organized >and are working as asked for by the WSIS. I suggest them to ask >their African counterparts for some advice and help. In the >framework of the EU-ACP Agreement for instance. > >For all these reasons, I strongly ask EU CS to boycott such a meeting. >All the best > >Jean-Louis Fullsack >CSDPTT >Focal person to the EP of the European CS accredited to the WSIS > >_______________________________________________ >Gov mailing list >Gov at wsis-gov.org >http://mail.conferences.tv/mailman/listinfo/gov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090408/c0fbfa13/attachment.htm From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 9 22:43:30 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 22:43:30 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Fw: Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Message-ID: <351DC1B851434A6BA0CD4AA06896E1AC@PCbureau> Sorry for having missed the programme Jean-Louis Fullsack PUBLIC HEARING "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" European Parliament Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16.00 - 18.30 ROOM: ASP 3G3 Interpretation available: FR, DE, EN, ES Programme 16.00 - 16.10 Welcome Speech by Gunnar H?kmark, MEP 1st Panel chaired by Catherine Trautmann, Vice-President ITRE Committee 16.10 - 16.20 Torbj?rn Fr?ysnes Director of the Liaison Office of the Council of Europe with European Institutions and Special Representative of the Secretary General 16.20 - 16.30 Martin Boyle Senior Policy Advisor, Nominet 16.30 - 16.40 Eugenio Triana International Management Consultant on telecom policy, space and satellite systems, copyright and intellectual property rights (ICANN Initial Board of Directors) 16.40 - 17.10 Q&A and discussion 2nd Panel chaired by Pilar Del Castillo Vera, MEP 17.15 - 17.25 Patrik F?ltstr?m Member of the board of Swedish Networks User Society 17.25 - 17.35 Christopher Wilkinson ISOC-ECC Board Members, European Chapters Coordinating Council, ISOC-Belgium-Wallonie 17.35 - 17.45 Nicklas Lundblad European Policy Manager, Google 17.45 - 18.15 Q&A and discussion 18.15 - 18.30 Conclusions Catherine Trautmann Vice-President ITRE Committee ----- Original Message ----- From: jlfullsack To: WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance ; Caucus Europe Cc: Catherine Trautmann Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 5:42 PM Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Policy manoeuvres around a European IGF Dear all The above event announcement that was sent yesterday raises some serious concerns in my opinion. The European IGF is pending since January 2008 when it was announced and unanimously adopted by the European Parliament in Strasbourg (see my report on this session sent to the euc list). Since nothing happened in the meantime, EuroDig -launched by some of our colleagues with the strong support of the Council of Europe in October 2008- questioned the two MEPs attending the meeting about the urgent necessity for -at last- setting up this European IGF as proposed by the final documents of the WSIS (i.e. multistakeholder based and open to CS). Both Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour gave their strong support to that. The "hearing" in Brussels mentioned below is likely to be the response of the EU Commission to our concerns. However it is very far from the European CS expectations for a couple of reasons, and therefore unacceptable for us. Among these reasons : First : It is published just one week before the meeting, thus placing CS organisations concerned before a "fait accompli", and therefore unable to prepare the meeting and coordinate different organisations for a fruitful participation. Second : There won't be any representative of the European CS in the discussion panels. In fact, these are organised "around" private sector speakers. Patrik Faltstrom who is alternatively a manager at Cisco, a represntative of the Swedish government or a NGO member (as chair or something like of a Swedish ICT users organisation), depending on the nature of the meeting, definitely isn't a CS representative ! Third : Restricting the role of the European CS, who is engaged in the WSIS process since its very beginning, to just being a possible single answerer to the EC or EP selected questions during a couple of minutes, is an obvious sign of contempt for all of its organisations and members. Moreover, this attitude of the Commission (with or without the EP's support) strongly infringes the framework and the procedures based on multistakeholder principles edicted by the WSIS and agreed on by all European governments in Tunis. At last, I'd kindly ask our politicians in Brussels to draw their inspiration from the sub-regional African IGFs which are organized and are working as asked for by the WSIS. I suggest them to ask their African counterparts for some advice and help. In the framework of the EU-ACP Agreement for instance. For all these reasons, I strongly ask EU CS to boycott such a meeting. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT Focal person to the EP of the European CS accredited to the WSIS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ WSIS-EUC mailing list WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090409/27c59e77/attachment.htm From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Fri Apr 10 22:44:58 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:58 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] European IGF meeting Message-ID: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical remarks. PUBLIC HEARING "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" European Parliament Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16.00 - 18.30 ROOM: ASP 3G3 I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the above. Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and prepare it seriously. European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and facilitated by the Council of Europe held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090410/f15a3f96/attachment.htm From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sat Apr 11 08:27:37 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:27:37 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <5C15962E505F43A99B52148248D24571@PCbureau> Thank you, Louis for your support. We, citizens of Europe and members of the European CS, cannot participate to that kind of "Private (sector) hearing" under the auspices of the European Parliament (EP) and the European Commission. Moreover, such an event, just some weeks before the polls of the new EP, isn't encouraging the Europeans for their participion. Friendly Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Louis Pouzin" To: "WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance" Cc: "Caucus Europe" ; Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:53 PM Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels > No point looking for a place in Strasbourg > > For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. > It is "irrelevant". > - - - > > On 4/10/09, jlfullsack wrote: >> Dear all >> >> At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds >> lack >> of preparation to my previous critical remarks. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Sat Apr 11 08:46:53 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:46:53 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> <20090410230125.5173468D15@smtp1.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Bonjour Jean-Fran?ois et tous Je ne pr?conise pas le boycott de cette r?union ? cause de Catherine Trautmann que je connais et appr?cie pour son engagement en d'autres circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "?galitaire" que possible ? la SC europ?enne. Bref, je demande ? NOS ?lus, de respecter ce que NOS gouvernements ont sign? ? Gen?ve et ? Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout entier doit en ?tre conscient. Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et ?crit dans mon compte-rendu -envoy? ? Catherine Trautmann et ? Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir r?ellement ? la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Europ?en. C'est un pr?requis. La r?union annonc?e est comme une fin de non-recevoir ? cette demande. Il y a un moment o? il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les r?gles du jeu sont trop pip?es. Ce moment est l? : il faut le saisir et esp?rer que nos ?lus en tirent -enfin!- les cons?quences. Pour qu'un v?ritable FGI-Europ?en multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. Amicalement Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" To: ; "Louis Pouzin" Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >> >>For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>It is "irrelevant". > > Dans le principe, OK. Il est m?me aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, > le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). > Mais, nous n'avons peut-?tre pas ? nous mettre ? mal avec le PS (au moment > de l'Hadopi) o? Trauttmann fait-l? ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que > l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaill? sur sa motion > de l'ann?e pass?e ? > jfc > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > From esther.joly at club-internet.fr Sat Apr 11 11:55:25 2009 From: esther.joly at club-internet.fr (Esther Joly) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:55:25 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <5C15962E505F43A99B52148248D24571@PCbureau> Message-ID: U support this position.... It is time to say that the civil society do must have a reel place. Esther Le 11/04/09 8:27, ??jlfullsack?? a tapot??: > Thank you, Louis for your support. > We, citizens of Europe and members of the European CS, cannot participate to > that kind of "Private (sector) hearing" under the auspices of the European > Parliament (EP) and the European Commission. > > Moreover, such an event, just some weeks before the polls of the new EP, > isn't encouraging the Europeans for their participion. > > Friendly > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Louis Pouzin" > To: "WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance" > Cc: "Caucus Europe" ; > Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 11:53 PM > Subject: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >> No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >> >> For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >> It is "irrelevant". >> - - - >> >> On 4/10/09, jlfullsack wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds >>> lack >>> of preparation to my previous critical remarks. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-EUC mailing list > WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc > > -- ? L?humour, c?est comme les essuie glaces, ?a n?arr?te pas la pluie, mais ?a permet d?avancer. ? Bruno Coppens From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Apr 12 23:17:48 2009 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 23:17:48 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <49E25A7C.4020704@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang schrieb: > JFC: Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, > adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. > Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. > Wolfgang: This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Such broad campaigns are always tricky. Right now, most of the campaigning is done around the EU telecom package currently in 2nd reading, see FYI: We had a meeting of some German and European digital rights NGOs in Berlin on 3rd April (most of us were there because of the re:publica conference and the privacy open space sub-conference, see www.privacyos.eu). We agreed to aim for a public statement to be released before the EP elections, hopefully on 23rd May. It will not aim at internet rights only, but probably be a more general statement against the growing surveillance mania, but will also include opposition to internet "filtering" and related censorship efforts. We will try to coordinate this with European networks like EDRi.org, the Open Network Coalition (http://laquadrature.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opennetcoalition) and the "Freedom not Fear" partners (https://listes.globenet.org/listinfo/fnf2008). I will try to relay relevant updates to the WSIS-EU list. But anybody interested in helping out here should drop me an email offlist. > Should we try to identify candidates who could be pushing this > forward in case they are elected? A good start for this is . Best, Ralf From joachimboko at hotmail.com Thu Apr 9 16:58:35 2009 From: joachimboko at hotmail.com (Joachim Boko) Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 14:58:35 +0000 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Les deputes francais rejettent le projet de loi sur le piratage sur illegal sur l'Internet In-Reply-To: <20090408195428.D7CC16CE7@mail.conferences.tv> References: <20090408195428.D7CC16CE7@mail.conferences.tv> Message-ID: Salut a toutes et a tous, Pour votre information... http://www.france24.com/fr/20090409-deputes-rejet-vote-main-levee-loi-lutte-contre-telechargement-illegal-riposte-graduee-hadopi Joachim Boko Master of Public Administration University of Pittsburgh _________________________________________________________________ Sur Windows Live Ideas, d?couvrez en exclusivit? de nouveaux services en ligne... si nouveaux qu'ils ne sont pas encore sortis officiellement sur le march? ! http://ideas.live.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090409/4325dfbf/attachment-0001.htm From pouzin at email.enst.fr Fri Apr 10 23:53:07 2009 From: pouzin at email.enst.fr (Louis Pouzin (enst)) Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 23:53:07 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Message-ID: <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels No point looking for a place in Strasbourg For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. It is "irrelevant". - - - On 4/10/09, jlfullsack wrote: > Dear all > > At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" is ! This adds lack > of preparation to my previous critical remarks. From divina.meigs at orange.fr Sat Apr 11 16:33:47 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:33:47 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] European IGF meeting: what legal solution? In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: Jean-Louis et tous Je soutiens enti?rement ton analyse et les conclusions que tu en tires. Le probl?me, c'est que le Parlement continue ? faire ses affaires de mani?re parlementaire, et il n'a pas pour mission et validation d'?tre une plateforme multi-partenaire. Quand il le fait, c'est de mani?re peu cr?dible qui n'est pas de nature ? inspirer la confiance, surtout du c?t? de la soci?t? civile. La fausse consultation de la semaine prochaine est caract?ristique... Il faut donc trouver une autre entit? qui sache mieux jouer ce r?le. C'est ce que j'avais dit ? EuroDig, en proposant un tandem Conseil de l'Europe + Parlement, comme solution a minima mais relevant d'une logique europ?enne viable. Le Parlement semble vouloir jouer cavalier seul, avec quelques lobbies en soutien. Cependant, l'avantage du Parlement, c'est qu'il peut l?gif?rer, ce qui est int?ressant pour ceux d'entre nous qui pensent que l'IGF ne va pas assez loin et devrait pouvoir ?tre accompagn? d'un processus de recommandations... A ce stade, je crois qu'il faut trouver une solution juridique et/ou diplomatique, qui permette la mise en place relativement p?renne d'une plateforme multi-partenaire de confiance. Pour le faire, comme toi Jean-Louis, je pense qu'il faut se r?clamer du processus l?gitime du SMSI et r?clamer aupr?s de nos elus qu'ils en respectent les engagements de mise en oeuvre... Qui connaissons-nous, du c?t? juridique, qui puisse nous proposer une strat?gie viable? Qui pourrait aller ? la r?union de la semaine prochaine pour dire que c'est ce que nous voulons? Amiti?s Divina Frau-Meigs Divina Frau-Meigs Professeur, sociologue des m?dias, Universit? Sorbonne nouvelle, Paris (FR) Directrice, master pro "ing?nierie de la formation ? distance et de l'?ducation aux m?dias" Membre du Bureau d'ECREA -European Communication Research and Education Asso Ex-Vice-pr?sidente de l'AIERI -Asso Intl Etudes et Recherches en Infocom- www.medias-matrices.net Le 11/04/09 8:46, ??jlfullsack?? a ?crit?: > > Bonjour Jean-Fran?ois et tous > > Je ne pr?conise pas le boycott de cette r?union ? cause de Catherine > Trautmann que je connais et appr?cie pour son engagement en d'autres > circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : > celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "?galitaire" que > possible ? la SC europ?enne. Bref, je demande ? NOS ?lus, de respecter ce > que NOS gouvernements ont sign? ? Gen?ve et ? Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout > entier doit en ?tre conscient. > > Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et ?crit dans mon compte-rendu -envoy? ? > Catherine Trautmann et ? Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir r?ellement > ? la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Europ?en. C'est un > pr?requis. La r?union annonc?e est comme une fin de non-recevoir ? cette > demande. > > Il y a un moment o? il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les > r?gles du jeu sont trop pip?es. Ce moment est l? : il faut le saisir et > esp?rer que nos ?lus en tirent -enfin!- les cons?quences. Pour qu'un > v?ritable FGI-Europ?en multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. > > Amicalement > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JFC Morfin" > To: ; "Louis Pouzin" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >> At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>> No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>> For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>> It is "irrelevant". >> >> Dans le principe, OK. Il est m?me aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, >> le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >> Mais, nous n'avons peut-?tre pas ? nous mettre ? mal avec le PS (au moment >> de l'Hadopi) o? Trauttmann fait-l? ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que >> l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaill? sur sa motion >> de l'ann?e pass?e ? >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-EUC mailing list > WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc > From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 18:13:53 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:13:53 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <661ab3ba0904101453t11b36458m233db1bf93847663@mail.gmail.com> <20090410230125.5173468D15@smtp1.electricembers.net> <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: <20090411161404.7D79754C1A2@gadolin.fsfeurope.org> Je comprends. Si c'est clair avec Trauttman et le PS qui peut solidement aider pour la Hadopi, je n'ai pas de probl?me. france at large a clairement expliqu? ? certains des intervenants que nous avons au contact dans l'affaire de l'effort IETF/Google de simplification des IDN par la d?naturation du fran?ais, pourquoi nous ne serons pas ? Bruxelles. Juste une remarque. Le Parlement Europ?en est un acteur int?ressant, mais pas un acteur n?cessaire, pour le lancement de l'euro-FGI. Vu le calendrier, je pense que les ?lections europ?ennes sont une opportunit? pour les citoyens d'Europe de porter les sujets ayant trait ? l'Internet, et en particulier la constitution de l'Internet inscrite dans le code source sans le contr?le de nos ?lus (et en fait de quiconque), mais ayant progressivement un impact aussi grand que Lisbonne sur notre vie quotidienne. L'internet et sa part dans la sortie de crise est sans nul doute un enjeu cl? de ces ?lections dans la r?alit? (cf. le vote sur la r?gression punitive), il doit aussi l'?tre dans le d?bat. Je caresse l'id?e de lancer une liste "citoyens at euro-fgi.eu" qui permettrait ? chaque liste en pr?sence de pr?senter ses positions, et d'installer sur le site un Wiki pour les documenter et tenir ? jour au fur et ? mesure du d?bat (mais j'ai des probl?mes de charge machine possible). Note, que je ne prends l? aucune autre position que la n?cessit? d'un forum citoyen sur LE sujet concret qui r?unit les Europ?ens au quotidien en les mettant aussi sous la tutelle commerciale, technique et politique de choix qui ne sont pas forc?ment les leurs. jfc At 08:46 11/04/2009, jlfullsack wrote: >Bonjour Jean-Fran?ois et tous > >Je ne pr?conise pas le boycott de cette r?union ? cause de Catherine >Trautmann que je connais et appr?cie pour son engagement en d'autres >circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de >principe : celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi >"?galitaire" que possible ? la SC europ?enne. Bref, je demande ? NOS >?lus, de respecter ce que NOS gouvernements ont sign? ? Gen?ve et ? >Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout entier doit en ?tre conscient. > >Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et ?crit dans mon compte-rendu -envoy? ? >Catherine Trautmann et ? Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir >r?ellement ? la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Europ?en. >C'est un pr?requis. La r?union annonc?e est comme une fin de >non-recevoir ? cette demande. > >Il y a un moment o? il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" >car les r?gles du jeu sont trop pip?es. Ce moment est l? : il faut >le saisir et esp?rer que nos ?lus en tirent -enfin!- les >cons?quences. Pour qu'un v?ritable FGI-Europ?en multi-partenarial se >mette -enfin !- en place. > >Amicalement >Jean-Louis Fullsack > >----- Original Message ----- From: "JFC Morfin" >To: ; "Louis Pouzin" >Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >>At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>>One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>>No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>>For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>>It is "irrelevant". >> >>Dans le principe, OK. Il est m?me aggressif (Google, ISOC, >>e-commerce UK, le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >>Mais, nous n'avons peut-?tre pas ? nous mettre ? mal avec le PS (au >>moment de l'Hadopi) o? Trauttmann fait-l? ce qu'elle peut dans >>l'urgence pour que l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a >>travaill? sur sa motion de l'ann?e pass?e ? >>jfc >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 18:51:37 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:51:37 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] European IGF meeting: what legal solution? In-Reply-To: References: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: <20090411165151.65EF054C19E@gadolin.fsfeurope.org> At 16:33 11/04/2009, Divina MEIGS wrote: >Pour le faire, comme toi Jean-Louis, je pense qu'il faut se r?clamer >du processus l?gitime du SMSI et r?clamer aupr?s de nos elus qu'ils >en respectent les engagements de mise en oeuvre... Divina, le processus l?gitime du SMSI est la l?gitimit? reconnue ? chacun. En terme d'Internet personne n'est plus ?gal que l'autre (Etat, ?lu, entreprise, personne priv?e), sauf celui qui peut changer l'internet - par la loi, l'argent, la technique, l'adh?sion de l'usage (ce qu'en terminologie Internet on appelle les "@larges"). Nous le voyons dans le cas de la Hadaopi qui devient une absurdit? technico-d?mocratique en raison de la supp?riorit? de comp?tence technique des l?gif?r?s sur celle des l?gif?rants. Nous ne voulons pas que le Parlement vote des lois en soi. Nous voulons que le Parlement nous repr?sente et pour cela nous ?coute. C'est le but du Forum de servir d'interface o? qui a ? dire et qui ? ?couter peut librement participer, sous la pression de qui peut pratiquement forcer les choses. Jusqu'? pr?sent cette pression ?tait celle des lobbys et de la rue. Elle est maintenant aussi celle d'interlocuteurs structurellement incontournables que sont les "utilisateurs pilotes", c'est ? dire ceux qui peuvent ? tout moment non pas contourner la loi, mais la rendre obsol?te en changeant les param?tres pratiques de la donne. L'euro-FGI est pr?cis?ment le lieu o? les Etats, instances, soci?t? civiles et secteur priv?s peuvent informellement "n?gocier" avec ce nouveau type d'interlocuteurs. Si leur futurs partenaires ne prennent pas l'initiative du Forum commun (comme en France o? la Hadopi aurait du r?sulter d'une concertation au sein du FGI-FR) il convient que cela soit ces interlocuteurs qui la prenne. C'est pourquoi france at large, la plus ancienne association au services des utilisateurs pilotes, a pris dans les limites de ses modestes moyens, l'inititative des sites (et la structure d'accompagnement pour la France) FGI-FR et euro-FGI qu'elle apporte et met ? la disposition de tous. Cordialement. jfc From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Sat Apr 11 16:57:48 2009 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:57:48 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> (jlfullsack@wanadoo.fr's message of "Fri, 10 Apr 2009 22:44:58 +0200") References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> Message-ID: <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 188 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090411/1ae6e7d2/attachment-0001.pgp From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 11 22:09:54 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:09:54 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry the resolution was January 2008 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+MOTION+B6-2008-0041+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN See paragraph 9 wolfgang ________________________________ Von: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 21:54 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Andrea Glorioso; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: AW: [governance] European IGF meeting My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is already late. I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in September this year. It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken seriously as THE regional European IG event. Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Andrea Glorioso [mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 16:57 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: Re: [governance] European IGF meeting >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Apr 11 21:54:45 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 21:54:45 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is already late. I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in September this year. It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken seriously as THE regional European IG event. Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Andrea Glorioso [mailto:andrea at digitalpolicy.it] Gesendet: Sa 11.04.2009 16:57 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: jlfullsack; WSIS CS WG on Information Networks Governance; Caucus Europe Betreff: Re: [governance] European IGF meeting >>>>> "jlfullsack" == jlfullsack writes: > Dear all At the moment being, nobody knows WHERE the "Room ASP" > is ! "Room ASP 3G3" means "Room 3G3" in the "Altiero Spinelli" building, which is a part of the overall complex of the European Parliament in Bruxelles. If you enter in the "Spinelli" building you can find signs directing you to such room. Also, as far as I can see this hearing has been organised by the European Parliament, without the involvement of the European Commission (unlike what I think I understood from your previous email on this same subject). Best, Andrea Glorioso > This adds lack of preparation to my previous critical > remarks. > PUBLIC HEARING > "An Internet Governance Forum for Europe?" > European Parliament > Wednesday, 15 April 2009 > 16.00 - 18.30 > ROOM: ASP 3G3 > I therefore maintain my suggestion for CS to boycott this event. > The second edition of EuroDig announced below is likely to be > more serious and inclusive. This is another reason to forget the > above. > Let's concentrate our attention on the Geneva meeting and > prepare it seriously. > European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG.org) presents > EuroDIG 2009 Geneva, September 14 - 15, 2009 > co-organized by the Swiss Federal Office of Communications > (OFCOM) and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) and > facilitated by the Council of Europe > held at the EBU Geneva headquarters, L'Ancienne-Route 17A, > CH-1218 Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland > more information on EuroDIG 2009 will be announced soon!xxx > All the best > Jean-Louis Fullsack > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance <#secure > method=pgpmime mode=sign> -- Andrea Glorioso || http://people.digitalpolicy.it/sama/cv/ M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133 "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Apr 11 22:41:01 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 22:41:01 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm. uni-halle.de> References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <20090411204112.316D154C182@gadolin.fsfeurope.org> Wolfgang, we are in agreement on what you say. The disagreement is on the facts that: (1) on the EP side: we were not invited, while others we daily oppose or internationally opposed to (and are/were defeated according to the rules of the concerned arenas - meaning their representativeness is less established than our's) were invited in good order. (2) on the CS side: we tend to give too much importance to the regalian domain, forgetting the co-initiative capacity and duty of the civil society and lead users. The win^5 is if every of the regalian, civil, private, international and technical poles take the lead whenever they can, as the EP, Eurodig, france at large did. Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. jfc At 21:54 11/04/2009, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: >My understanding of the EP Hearing that it is a consequence of the >EP Resolution on the IGF from January 1997. The rersolution says >that a European IGF should be held in the 1st quarter of 2009. So >that EP was obliged to do something before the election. April is >already late. > >I do not see a contradiction between the Hearing and EURODIG. In >contrary it gives the whole process more visibility and continuity. >This will be a win-win. There was another EP/ITRE Hearing in >November 2008 in Strasbourg also with Madame Trautmann. Here we >discussed, inter alia, the relationship between EP and EURODIG and >we came to the conlusion that the best solution is to see EURODIG as >a process with various events (national and sub-regional) in between >and one big all-European event which is EURODIG II in Geneva in >September this year. > >It is nonsense to create an artificial conflict between the 27 >member states of the EU/EP and the 48 member states of the COE. We >all know that Europe is bigger than the 27 but we also know that >EURODIG has to embrace the Commission and the Parliament (and the >council) otherwise it would weaken itself and would not be taken >seriously as THE regional European IG event. > >Lets work hand in hand and concentrate more on substance than on procedures. > >Wolfgang From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Apr 12 16:05:10 2009 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:05:10 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DBE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> JFC: Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. Wolfgang: This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Should we try to identify candidates who could be pushing this forward in case they are elected? I also agree with you other points related to CS. Probably we could linke a EURALO event to EURODIG. Question is funding ;-((((- w From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Apr 13 01:24:23 2009 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:24:23 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [Gov 649] Re: [governance] European IGF meeting References: <5091936D8BC6402ABF24CBAEB1D7D876@PCbureau> <87k55rz18z.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718DB9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <20090411204107.F044AA6C14@smtp2.electricembers.net> Message-ID: <20090413024050.00D0B47D3E1@gadolin.fsfeurope.org> At 16:05 12/04/2009, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: >JFC: >Right now the priority, IMHO is to make the Internet governance, >adminance and rights a european election campaign citizen issue. >Every help/cooperation to that end are welcome. > >Wolfgang: >This is a great proposal. How we can do this? Should we try to >identify candidates who could be pushing this forward in case they >are elected? I propose to create citizen at euro-igf.eu lists per languages (i.e. citoyens at euro-fgi.eu en fran?ais, etc.) and to create a wiki with a page available to every list of candidates. When they register they can introduce themselves, and then develop their positions in using their own page. Then every list of candidate or candidate (depending on the country system I presume?) will have to explain its/her position in response to our/user questions. We set-up a small team per country to manage - find the mail addresses - send them mails - manage the national wiki page it becomes a local Euro-IGF secretariat with the national mailing lists. As long as the person/team want to be neutral, professionnal and serve (and not to decide) his/its country internet policy and development, it is OK. So after the election we can use the Euro-IGF either as a true on-line Euro-IGF, or as a lobbying tool towards a real euro-IGF meeting. Also, we will have an interface in every european political parties. The need is a fine trustable person for each country. I can register a non-profit non-political secretariat membership limited to active helpers forming the BoD (one per country is necessary and enough + adminstrative editor, operations support, moderator and treasurer [31 members]), to admin the project. I can have one or two part time French persons to help. Such a thing to work must be very very mechanic. Taking no position. But asking good questions they may collect from the users. I am building a non-profit wikifarm on a dedicated Linux server. If somebody could help me (MySQL, Mediawiki, some extensions, mailman, some statistic tools, etc.) we can have something by the end of the week. >I also agree with you other points related to CS. Probably we could >linke a EURALO event to EURODIG. Question is funding ;-((((- Which funding? We are not interested in spending but in acting people. If france at large do things for 8 years and INTLNET for 31 it is because we have no money (no banking account). So we do not need to pay banks, accountants, etc. And we are FREE ! As a result - we have not been accepted as an ALS, we are not Euralo members, and we did not come in the Mexico ICANN atlarge incentive vacations. The recipe is to have people motivated who see enough of action return on their time investment to accept to pay for one or two european trips to meeting starting after the arrival of the morning train in well located places with low fare/hitch-hiking transportation. If/when the things works the non-profit will manage the relations with sponsors and T&L for real support. Best. jfc From divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Apr 15 07:16:02 2009 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 07:16:02 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting In-Reply-To: <82795C5A2EDF4053BAD5372A797782B5@PCbureau> Message-ID: Bonjour Jean-Luis et vous tous Je suis d'accord que la soci?t? civile doit boycotter la r?union de cette semaine, mais il serait bon de le faire savoir aux int?ress?s eux-m?mes. C'est pourquoi il faudrait soit envoyer une personne qui l'exprimera en public, soit envoyer une lettre qui explique nos raisons... La politique de la chaise vide est dangereuse pour ceux qui ne l'occupent pas ... Sauf s'ils restent actifs par ailleurs :-) Divina Le 11/04/09 8:46, ??jlfullsack?? a ?crit?: > > Bonjour Jean-Fran?ois et tous > > Je ne pr?conise pas le boycott de cette r?union ? cause de Catherine > Trautmann que je connais et appr?cie pour son engagement en d'autres > circonstances et domaines, mais pour une question fondamentale de principe : > celui du dialogue ouvert et laissant une part aussi "?galitaire" que > possible ? la SC europ?enne. Bref, je demande ? NOS ?lus, de respecter ce > que NOS gouvernements ont sign? ? Gen?ve et ? Tunis notamment. Le PSE tout > entier doit en ?tre conscient. > > Je l'ai dit lors d'EuroDig et ?crit dans mon compte-rendu -envoy? ? > Catherine Trautmann et ? Malcolm Harbour- que le PE doit s'ouvrir r?ellement > ? la SC avant de pouvoir mettre en place un FGI Europ?en. C'est un > pr?requis. La r?union annonc?e est comme une fin de non-recevoir ? cette > demande. > > Il y a un moment o? il nous faut dire "halte, on ne joue plus avec" car les > r?gles du jeu sont trop pip?es. Ce moment est l? : il faut le saisir et > esp?rer que nos ?lus en tirent -enfin!- les cons?quences. Pour qu'un > v?ritable FGI-Europ?en multi-partenarial se mette -enfin !- en place. > > Amicalement > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "JFC Morfin" > To: ; "Louis Pouzin" > Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2009 1:01 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] [Gov 647] European IGF meeting > > >> >> At 23:53 10/04/2009, Louis Pouzin wrote: >>> One of the announcements read, European Parliament, Brussels >>> No point looking for a place in Strasbourg >>> >>> For us, this meeting IS NOT a European IGF meeting. >>> It is "irrelevant". >> >> Dans le principe, OK. Il est m?me aggressif (Google, ISOC, e-commerce UK, >> le gentil tueur de langues de Cisco). >> Mais, nous n'avons peut-?tre pas ? nous mettre ? mal avec le PS (au moment >> de l'Hadopi) o? Trauttmann fait-l? ce qu'elle peut dans l'urgence pour que >> l'on garde dans les archives que cette session a travaill? sur sa motion >> de l'ann?e pass?e ? >> jfc >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > > > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-EUC mailing list > WSIS-EUC at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-euc > From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Apr 27 11:37:01 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:37:01 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Important debate on Tuesday EP session Message-ID: <1C91C5DE997247CCB91FDD83AF188621@PCbureau> Dear Europeans On next Tuesday morning there will be a very interesting debate with four topics which should raise some concerns within our group. Unfortunately my annual badge for the EP is being renewed and this takes a lot of time in the European bureaucracy ! Nevertheless I'll try to get an authorisation to attend this session through Catherine Trautmann. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack Tuesday 5 May 2009 Draft agenda 9:00 - 11:50 [LEGISLATIVE DEBATES] Joint debate - Electronic communications Recommendation for second reading: Malcolm Harbour A6-0257/2009 Electronic communications networks, personal data and the protection of privacy Recommendation for second reading: Catherine Trautmann A6-0272/2009 Electronic communications networks and services Recommendation for second reading: Pilar del Castillo Vera A6-0271/2009 European Electronic Communications Market Authority Report: Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar A6- /2009 Frequency bands to be reserved for mobile communications Report: Anni Podimata A6-0146/2009 Labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (recast) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/5b9ead95/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 427 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/5b9ead95/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 63 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/5b9ead95/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 53 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/5b9ead95/attachment-0002.gif From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Mon Apr 27 14:14:38 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:14:38 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] further info to EP session Message-ID: Further information to my previous mail JLF European Parliament - Draft agenda - Tuesday May 4th, 20096 9:00 - 11:50 [LEGISLATIVE DEBATES] Joint debate - Electronic communications 15***II Recommendation for second reading: Malcolm Harbour (A6-0257/2009) - Electronic communications networks, personal data and the protection of privacy on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities for the enforcement of consumer protection laws [16497/1/2008 - C6-0068/2009 - 2007/0248(COD)] Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection 16***II Recommendation for second reading: Catherine Trautmann (A6-0272/2009) - Electronic communications networks and services Common position adopted by the Council on 16 February 2009 with a view to the adoption of a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to and interconnection of electronic communications networks and services, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services [16496/1/2008 - C6-0066/2009 - 2007/0247(COD)] Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 17***II Recommendation for second reading: Pilar del Castillo Vera (A6-0271/2009) - European Electronic Communications Market Authority Common position adopted by the Council on 16 February with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Group of European Regulators in Telecoms (GERT) [16498/1/2008 - C6-0067/2009 - 2007/0249(COD)] Committee on Industry, Research and Energy 18***I Report: Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar (A6- /2009) - Frequency bands to be reserved for mobile communications Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 87/372/EEC on the frequency bands to be reserved for the coordinated introduction of public pan-European cellular digital land-based mobile communications in the Community [COM(2008)0762 - C6-0452/2008 - 2008/0214(COD)] Committee on Industry, Research and Energy End of joint debate 19***I Report: Anni Podimata (A6-0146/2009) - Labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products (recast) on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the indication by labelling and standard product information of the consumption of energy and other resources by energy-related products [COM(2008)0778 - C6-0412/2008 - 2008/0222(COD)] Committee on Industry, Research and Energy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 934 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 224 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0001.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0002.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 66 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0003.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 69 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0004.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 356 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0005.gif -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 68 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090427/33f6423d/attachment-0006.gif From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Wed Apr 29 18:12:48 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:12:48 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] Danger : RFID Message-ID: Dear Europeans How far will the finishing Commission go in its relations with the US "intelligence" ? Up to now the Commission agreed to transfer a set of 52 personal data for each European citizen traveling to, or even transiting through, the US. That was only a soft beginning ! In the future this tranfer will be automatized through RFID : that's the progress folks ! BTW don't forget to vote on June 5-7 but ensure your candidate won't sell your identity to Uncle Sam once installed in the comfortable EP seats ... Best Jean-Louis Fullsack EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT 2nd TransAtlantic Symposium on the Societal Benefits of RFID 5 May 2009 - 6 May 2009 Brussels, Belgium This event is a follow-up to the Symposium organised last year in Washington DC (USA). At the EU-US summit in April 2007 the leaders of the EU and the US made the statement that deeper transatlantic economic integration will benefit citizens and the competitiveness of both economies. A small set of lighthouse projects that could advance this integration have been defined and the RFID lighthouse project is one. The objective of the Symposium is to exchange experiences and best practices on applications or concepts that The Symposium will be preceded by a networking day on May 5th. The objective of the networking day is to discuss possible RFID pilot projects and to invite stakeholders to actively engage in this process. A few tangible EU/US RFID lighthouse project ideas will be presented. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-euc/attachments/20090429/12589bf7/attachment.htm From jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr Thu Apr 30 18:22:14 2009 From: jlfullsack at wanadoo.fr (jlfullsack) Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:22:14 +0200 Subject: [WSIS-EUC] [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements References: <49F97570.9080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8718EBA@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <49F97BCA.9090008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <169F4816BEC54B01A6CC3D5D6A654727@PCbureau> Dear all A far as I understand there was no formal invitation to the CS involved in IG or generally in Internet issues for participating in this "hearing". If I'm right this is a first point to raise. Second, as for the preceding ITRE Hearing, the announcement (to whom ?) was made just one week before the meeting. Third, all these "hearings" don't replace an actual European IGF, promised to the EU citizens in January last year, because of their obvious lack of the most basic multistakeholder principles and of a minimum of respect to the CS, i.a. through an invitation in due form and period of time. Therefore, the urgent setting-up of an actual Euro-IGF is the third point that should be strongly raised by (one of) our WSIS CS member(s). These CS concerns should be forcefully stressed especially a couple of weeks before the EP poll, which -as nobody ignores- will be a popular flop in likely all of the 27 member countries. The way the European top constituencies are treating European citizens through their CS organizations (e.g. see above) isn't the adequate incentive to reverse this regretable trend ! They probably prefer their 12 000 or so "accredited" lobbyists whose offices surround the Brussels EU buildings and who are far more discrete. Who is still talking about transparency ? Thus, please, these citizens' concerns should be expressed by our CS participant with the same conviction as the IG or Internet related issues. If they fail in this way, these CS members may be "experts" or other likes, but they cannot claim they are part of, and represent the WSIS involved CS in such an event. All the best Jean-Louis Fullsack ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeanette Hofmann" To: ""Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"" Cc: ; "Parminder" ; "Ian Peter" ; "Christopher Wilkinson" Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:22 PM Subject: Re: AW: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements > > Hi, in case I caused a misunderstanding I'd like to point out that the > Commission did not invite the caucus per so to present a statement. I was > told that I could suggest someone else in place of me. This is why > suggested that a member of the caucus might want to go. Independently of > that, I also asked if the caucus wants to submit a statement. If we have > no statement, we, or more precisely one of us, can still make use of the > empty seat. > > jeanette > > Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: >> My understanding from the EU meeting is that this is more a >> "brainstorming" than a formal hearing where people present "positions". >> There will be several people from the Caucus on the table. I do not see a >> need at this point to present a formal IGC statement, but it would be >> good if the various IGC members participate actively in the brainstorming >> also by making clear that they are linked to the IGC, which would be good >> to show other stakeholders, that the IGC is a active stakeholder, has >> good ideas and good people. I will be there, will speak as an individual >> expert but will make clear that CS and the IGC should be adequatly (in >> its respectuive role) in the future activities. >> Wolfgang >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> Gesendet: Do 30.04.2009 11:54 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >> Cc: Christopher Wilkinson; Jeanette Hofmann >> Betreff: Re: [governance] hearing on Internet Governance arrangements in >> >> >> Ian and Ginger, >> >> Will due respect and thankfulness to Christopher's kind offer I am unable >> to clearly understand what would representing IGC at this meeting mean? I >> therefore request further clarity on this. The questions posed by EU are >> all very important issues with deep implications for the IG arena. I am >> not sure (1) if IGC has formed relatively clear and expressable views on >> these issues, and (2) even if it has done so in its earlier statements, >> how these views will be read and communicated. It is my view that IGC >> being represented by Christopher, who presumably has been invited in >> his capacity as the chair of ISOC-EU, will create some amount of >> confusion, without gaining anything substantial. It is important to note >> in this regard that OECD (and presumably EU, which consists of countries >> that are an important part of OECD) see ISOC chiefly to be from the >> technical community constituency, and recently it has created separate >> technical community and civil society constituencies in relation to its >> information society activities. IGC is of course seen to be from the >> civil society constituency. While I agree that ISOC has important CS >> aspects, we are working within a somewhat well established nomenclature/ >> categorization in this space and it is in our best interest to respect >> that for the present purpose. I would however very much like it if >> Christopher as an active IGC member can share information with us on what >> transpires at the meeting. Parminder Ian Peter wrote: I've discussed with >> Ginger and unless there are strong objections we >> recommend that we take up Christopher's offer to represent IGC at this >> event. >> >> As regards a statement - current statements are all on line at >> www.igcaucus.org (there is a page dedicated >> to these). That's probably a >> good starting point. >> >> >> >> On 28/04/09 10:34 PM, "Christopher Wilkinson" >> >> wrote: >> >> Well, Jeanette, I don't know who has been invited ... >> >> I think that what I have had to say on behalf of ISOC-ECC is already on >> the record, so if IGC so wishes, I could also speak to the points that >> we might wish to make. I suggest that we follow your suggestion: (a) >> edit appropriately an IGC statement and post it to the EC website - I >> imagine that the original authors would like to do that (by tomorrow?), >> and (b) prepare a few key points for a 5 minute (max) intervention. >> Depending on who else is present, we could arrange on the spot who >> actually speaks to these points. >> >> If IGC wishes to fill the available IGC place, OK. >> >> CW >> >> >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi Christopher, >> >> you are probably attending on an ISOC ticket? >> I've been told there is one place left we can fill. >> As usual, no funding available. >> jeanette >> >> Christopher Wilkinson wrote: >> Dear Jeanette: >> >> I plan to go to this event. ISOC-ECC has submitted our presentation >> to the European Parliament Hearings on 15 April.2009, attached. >> >> Regards to you all, >> >> Christopher. >> >> ---------------------------- >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Hi, >> >> the European Commission hosts a hearing on Internet Governance in >> Brussels on May 6. It is a by invitation only event. I got an >> invitation but cannot attend. Yesterday I was told that we, the IGC, >> can send somebody else. Would anybody be able and willing to go? >> >> We are also invited to contribute a written statement on any of the >> issues on the agenda. Since there is probably not enough time to >> write and agree on a new statement, perhaps it would make sense to >> contribute slightly amended version of one of our statements for the >> IGF public consultations? >> >> The website for the meeting: >> http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/internet_gov/index_en.htm >> >> >> >> I post the agenda here because it seems to be missing on the website: >> >> Hearing on Internet Governance arrangements >> 6 May 2009, 10:00 ? 17:15 >> Brussels ? Charlemagne Building , Room DURI >> >> >> 09:30 Registration & coffee >> 10:00 Introduction by the Commission >> 10.30 WSIS >> 11.15 Security & stability >> 12.00 The role of governments >> 12.45 Round up morning discussion >> 13.00 Lunch >> 14.15 Accountability and legitimacy >> 15.00 Internationalisation of Internet Governance >> 15:45 Coffee break >> 16:00 Digital divide >> 16.45 Round up afternoon discussion >> 17:00 Concluding remarks >> >> *** >> Theme description >> 1. WSIS: Progress since WSIS- how far are we with the implementation >> of WSIS principles? What are the new challenges, if any, since WSIS >> that should be addressed? >> 2. Security & stability of the Internet remains a key EU priority. >> What are the main threats/challenges? What should the EU be doing >> about them in particular with a view to their international dimension? >> 3. The role of public authorities: How should public authorities, in >> particular governments, respond to their responsibilities in view of >> the importance of the Internet to our economies and societies? What >> lessons, if any, should be learnt from the "financial crisis" (e.g. >> should self-regulation for critical infrastructures and services be >> more closely monitored by governments and relevant public >> authorities)? To what extent are private sector leadership and >> stronger governmental and public policy making complementary and >> necessary components for the effective management of the Internet? >> 4. Accountability and legitimacy: To what extent are self-regulatory >> governance bodies accountable to Internet users world-wide? What >> problems, if any, are posed by the fact that many Internet users do >> not participate, even indirectly, in the governance processes? Is it >> necessary to make governance fora more accountable to the wider >> international community and, if so, how? >> 5. Internationalisation of Internet Governance: Is it desirable or >> necessary to ensure fair participation of actors in their respective >> roles from all geographic regions in the future shaping of the >> Internet and if so, how? How can situations be avoided where the >> imposition of a particular legal system or jurisdiction might >> disadvantage players from outside the jurisdiction concerned? >> 6. Digital divide: The future billions of users will come largely >> from developing countries. Should the existing Internet governance >> mechanisms be adapted to reflect this evolution and, if so, how? >> Should the interests of those who don?t yet have Internet access be >> represented in the policy making processes and, if so, how? >> >> jeanette >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >