From muguet at mdpi.net Fri May 11 00:29:42 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 00:29:42 +0200 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Cluster of WSIS-related events, 14-25 May 2007, Geneva, Switzerland Message-ID: <46439CD6.8040304@mdpi.net> Dear free software supporters For those of you that are not subscribers of the WSIS plenary list, your attention is called to the next series of WSIS-related events, 14-25 May 2007, Geneva, Switzerland. All the information is available through a link on the first page of the WSIS-PCT site that has been updated. You may register online. It includes invitation letters from UNESCO that are not avaible on the UNESCO web site. Your attendance and attention are required not only for the action lines C3 Acces to Knowledge and C8 Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content, where the PCT group has been able to introduce some language ( http://wsis-pct.org/pct-geneva.html ) but for all the meetings eg C5: Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs C2: Information and communication infrastructure C4: Capacity building C6: Enabling environment C7 e-science C7 e-learning C9: Media C10: Ethical dimensions of the Information Society IGF consultation meeting, C1, C7 e-government, and C11 C7 e-business and C7 e-employment: See you hopefully in Geneva Best regards Francis -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ From muguet at mdpi.net Mon May 21 00:45:57 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 00:45:57 +0200 Subject: [Wsis-pct] News from Geneva Mozilla & IGF Message-ID: <4650CFA5.2060407@mdpi.net> Dear free software supporters 1/ Free Software honoured by ITU. The new president of ITU Hamadoun Tour? has made the bold choice to recognize and honour a Free Software Initiative : Mozilla http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2007/09.html The highlight of the global event marking the World Day will be the presentation of the ITU World Information Society Award. H.E. Dr Margarita Cede?o de Fern?ndez, First Lady of the Dominican Republic, Ms Mitchell Baker, on behalf of Mozilla Corporation of the United States, and Professor Mark Krivocheev of the Russian Federation are the 2007 laureates. http://mozillalinks.org/wp/2007/05/mozilla-awarded-the-world-information-society-award/ -------------------------------------- http://www.itu.int/wisd/2007/index.html http://www.itu.int/wisd/2007/award/laureates/index.html The Mozilla Corporation, represented by Ms Mitchell Baker, President and CEO For its outstanding contribution to the development of world-class Internet technologies and applications. Her speech ( the text was much longer that the text given here http://www.itu.int/wisd/2007/award/speeches/mozilla.html ) was in fact quite good and incisive but the webcast covers all the event http://www.itu.int/ibs/sg/wisd/20070516/index.phtml and just a RealPlayer feed that must be ripped in order to get just her speech. I am going to complain to the ITU webcast service about the choice de Real. I have made my own video recording of her speech, and after that I made a short interview. I did not have time yet to make the postproduction, but I will put those videos online. Markus Kummer was so impressed by her speech that he extended an invitation to her for the next IGF meeting in Rio. ------------------------ 2/ In regards to the IGF process, since this group is concerned with legal questions, A study of the legal process of the IGF of which I am the main author has been put online just now at http://www.wsis-pct.org/ --> IGF or directly at http://www.wsis-si.org/igf.html This is a draft. It basically says that the IGF process is currently operating in a legal vacuum, and new avenues of International Public Law must be explored to implement a a UN full multi-stakeholder process for which UN has no rules yet. This is a real legal challenge, and the consequences in terms of recognition of Civil Society can be very important and positive. Your comments and suggestions are welcome If there is enough positive interest in the group, I might send this contribution on behalf of the WSIS-PCT working groug for the IGF consultation meeting on May 23. Best Francis -- ----------------------------------------------------------- Francis F. Muguet Ph.D MDPI Open Access Journals - Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net Knowledge Networks & Information Society Lab. (KNIS) http://www.knis.org http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet E.N.S.T.A 32 Boulevard Victor muguet at ensta.fr 75739 PARIS CEDEX FRANCE (33) 01.45.52.60.19 -- Fax: (33) 01.45.52.52.82 WSIS World Summit on the Information Society Chair Scientific Information WG http://www.wsis-si.org Co-chair Patents & Copyrights WG htt://www.wsis-pct.org Multi-Stakeholders UN agency proposal http://www.unmsp.org WTIS World Tour of the Information Society http://www.wtis.org muguet at wtis;org ----------------------------------------------------------- From muguet at mdpi.net Wed May 30 02:58:44 2007 From: muguet at mdpi.net (Dr. Francis MUGUET) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 02:58:44 +0200 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA Message-ID: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> Dear Freedom supporters. Big businesses want to kill the Internet.: For information :http://savetheinternet.com What is this about? When we log onto the Internet, we take a lot for granted. We assume we'll be able to access any Web site we want, whenever we want, at the fastest speed, whether it's a corporate or mom-and-pop site. We assume that we can use any service we like ? watching online video, listening to podcasts, sending instant messages ? anytime we choose. What makes all these assumptions possible is Network Neutrality. What is Network Neutrality? Network Neutrality ? or "Net Neutrality" for short ? is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet. Put simply, Net Neutrality means no discrimination. Net Neutrality prevents Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination. Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It protects the consumer's right to use any equipment, content, application or service on a non-discriminatory basis without interference from the network provider. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data ? not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Learn more in Net Neutrality 101. Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality? The nation's largest telephone and cable companies ? including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner ? want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all. They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video ? while slowing down or blocking their competitors. These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services ? or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls ? and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road. The big phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying Congress and the Federal Communications Commission to gut Net Neutrality, putting the future of the Internet at risk. Is Net Neutrality a new regulation? Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s. But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality ? the foundation of the free and open Internet ? was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality. Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor. Isn't the threat to Net Neutrality just hypothetical? No. By far the most significant evidence regarding the network owners' plans to discriminate is their stated intent to do so. The CEOs of all the largest telecom companies have made clear their intent to build a tiered Internet with faster service for the select few companies willing or able to pay the exorbitant tolls. Network Neutrality advocates are not imagining a doomsday scenario. We are taking the telecom execs at their word. So far, we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. But numerous examples show that without network neutrality requirements, Internet service providers will discriminate against content and competing services they don't like. This type of censorship will become the norm unless we act now. Given the chance, these gatekeepers will consistently put their own interests before the public good. The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn. Isn't this just a battle between giant corporations? No. Our opponents would like to paint this debate as a clash of corporate titans. But the real story is the millions of everday people fighting for their Internet freedom. Small business owners benefit from an Internet that allows them to compete directly ? not one where they can't afford the price of entry. Net Neutrality ensures that innovators can start small and dream big about being the next EBay or Google without facing insurmountable hurdles. Without Net Neutrality, startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web. If Congress turns the Internet over to the telephone and cable giants, everyone who uses the Internet will be affected. Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't purchase your carrier's preferred applications. Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl. Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care information, planning a trip, or communicating with friends and family could fall victim to pay-for-speed schemes. Independent voices and political groups are especially vulnerable. Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips, silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies. Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups or candidates to pay a fee to join the "fast lane." What else are the phone and cable companies not telling the truth about? AT&T and others have funded a massive misinformation campaign, filled with deceptive advertising and "Astroturf" groups like Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org. Learn how to tell apart the myths from the realities in our report, Network Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction. What's at stake if we lose Net Neutrality? The consequences of a world without Net Neutrality would be devastating. Innovation would be stifled, competition limited, and access to information restricted. Consumer choice and the free market would be sacrificed to the interests of a few corporate executives. On the Internet, consumers are in ultimate control ? deciding between content, applications and services available anywhere, no matter who owns the network. There's no middleman. But without Net Neutrality, the Internet will look more like cable TV. Network owners will decide which channels, content and applications are available; consumers will have to choose from their menu. The free and open Internet brings with it the revolutionary possibility that any Internet site could have the reach of a TV or radio station. The loss of Net Neutrality would end this unparalleled opportunity for freedom of expression. The Internet has always been driven by innovation. Web sites and services succeeded or failed on their own merit. Without Net Neutrality, decisions now made collectively by millions of users will be made in corporate boardrooms. The choice we face now is whether we can choose the content and services we want, or whether the broadband barons will choose for us. What's happening in Congress? In 2006, Congress took up a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act called the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act. Despite more than $175 million spent on lobbying, campaign contributions, deceptive advertising and fake grassroots groups, the phone and cable companies failed to pass their legislation. Why did it fail? Because more than a million concerned citizens wrote and called Congress opposing any bill that didn't protect Net Neutrality. Now we have a new Congress, which must start work on any new telecom bill from scratch. The good news is that the new leadership has expressed its support for Net Neutrality. In the House, Rep. Ed Markey -- who championed a Net Neutrality bill in 2006 -- is the new chairman of the key committee shaping new legislation. In the Senate, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality. Call Congress today: Tell your elected representatives to make Net Neutrality the law now. Who's part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition? The SavetheInternet.com coalition is made up of hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum that are concerned about maintaining a free and open Internet. No corporation or political party funds our efforts. We simply agree to a statement of principles in support of Internet freedom. The coalition is being coordinated by Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization focused on media reform and Internet policy issues. Please complete this brief survey if your group would like to join this broad, bipartisan effort to save the Internet. Who else supports Net Neutrality? The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Facebook, Skype and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig, every major Democratic presidential candidate, and FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections. Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, Seattle Times, St. Petersburg Times and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet. What can I do to help? Sign the SavetheInternet.com petition. Call your members of Congress today and demand that Net Neutrality be protected. Encourage groups you're part of to sign the "Internet Freedom Declaration of 2007". Show your support for Internet freedom on your Web site or blog. Tell your friends about this crucial issue before it's too late. -- ------------------------------------------------------ Francis F. MUGUET Ph.D MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals Associate Publisher http://www.mdpi.org http://www.mdpi.net muguet at mdpi.org muguet at mdpi.net ENSTA Paris, France KNIS lab. Director "Knowledge Networks & Information Society" (KNIS) muguet at ensta.fr http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS) Civil Society Working Groups Scientific Information : http://www.wsis-si.org chair Patents & Copyrights : http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair Financing Mechanismns : http://www.wsis-finance.org web UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org WTIS initiative: http://www.wtis.org ------------------------------------------------------ From rms at gnu.org Wed May 30 17:43:58 2007 From: rms at gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 11:43:58 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> (muguet@mdpi.net) References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> Message-ID: I support their campaign, but think their definition of Net Neutrality is too narrow. Another sort of discrimination that some network providers engage in is discrimination based on what software the user runs. That should not be acceptable either. From rusdiah at rad.net.id Thu May 31 04:57:22 2007 From: rusdiah at rad.net.id (rusdiah rudi) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:57:22 +0700 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <465E3992.2000908@rad.net.id> Richard Stallman wrote: > I support their campaign, but think their definition of Net Neutrality > is too narrow. Another sort of discrimination that some network > providers engage in is discrimination based on what software the user > runs. That should not be acceptable either. > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-PCT mailing list > WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct We agree with richard stallman... talking about Net neutrality and Intenret... it should also include software and IPR... sometimes IPR and software are protected so that it is also not neutral anymore, although it is being used by majority of the people because of their power(right) not because of is is open. Regards, Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel / Indonesia From cnd at knowprose.com Thu May 31 08:41:42 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 02:41:42 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> Message-ID: <465E6E26.7040100@knowprose.com> Richard Stallman wrote: > I support their campaign, but think their definition of Net Neutrality > is too narrow. Another sort of discrimination that some network > providers engage in is discrimination based on what software the user > runs. That should not be acceptable either. > Whether it is too narrow or not, it is still worth supporting. It's not a new torch - it is at least 6 months old. I'd like to think that it would be possible to openly support Network Neutrality. I would think that the Free Software Foundation would openly support Network Neutrality, perhaps with the additional concerns as an addendum if that could be considered possible. Blaring the Free Software horn out of tune distracts and could damage the Network Neutrality issue. Network Neutrality is a very big issue at an international level, being decided (much like internet governance through lack of decisive action by others) by the United States. Winning at Network Neutrality could be seen as a strategic step toward for Free Software; not supporting it *effectively* will definitely damage Free Software in the context of Internet Governance. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com http://www.knowprose.com Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." ? Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla From rms at gnu.org Thu May 31 18:49:48 2007 From: rms at gnu.org (Richard Stallman) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:49:48 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: <465E6E26.7040100@knowprose.com> (message from Taran Rampersad on Thu, 31 May 2007 02:41:42 -0400) References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> <465E6E26.7040100@knowprose.com> Message-ID: Whether it is too narrow or not, it is still worth supporting. I agree. I do support this campaign, but when I support it, I also say that it needs to be extended. I would think that the Free Software Foundation would openly support Network Neutrality, perhaps with the additional concerns as an addendum if that could be considered possible. Maybe we can openly support Network Neutrality in a way that includes the free software issue. Blaring the Free Software horn out of tune distracts and could damage the Network Neutrality issue. We have been campaigning for free software for 24 years. It is the newcomers, the Net Neutrality people, who have neglected to tune their horns with us. It is not too late to start cooperation between them and us, but cooperation goes two ways. To gain our full support, they need to support our cause, where it falls into their area of interest. If they are not interested in full, two-way cooperation with us, we can still support their cause, but we won't neglect our own cause while we do it. From cnd at knowprose.com Thu May 31 19:49:49 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:49:49 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> <465E6E26.7040100@knowprose.com> Message-ID: <465F0ABD.6020909@knowprose.com> Richard Stallman wrote: > > Blaring the Free Software horn out > of tune distracts and could damage the Network Neutrality issue. > > We have been campaigning for free software for 24 years. It is the > newcomers, the Net Neutrality people, who have neglected to tune their > horns with us. > > It is not too late to start cooperation between them and us, but > cooperation goes two ways. To gain our full support, they need to > support our cause, where it falls into their area of interest. Let's put it this way: You lose network neutrality, you lose a big step for Free Software. If the network is compromised, we're back to the sneakernet. Is ego so important? Such needs to impress others might be painful for the prostate. They say that every revolution carries with it the seeds of its own destruction. Perhaps this is true. Support Network Neutrality or not, but I see no need to demean it simply because of a 24 year old campaign which is the center of one's universe. I would suggest that the FSF simply supporting Network Neutrality would be a step in the right direction, and might breed some good will from others who may not have heard or understood Free Software. What will you do to gain *their* full support? Nevermind. The Catholic Church once believed that the Earth was once the center of the universe. Poor Galileo. Took him 300 years for an apology. Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com http://www.knowprose.com Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." ? Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla From cnd at knowprose.com Thu May 31 21:56:00 2007 From: cnd at knowprose.com (Taran Rampersad) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:56:00 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: <200705312006.16479.arebenti@web.de> References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> <465F0ABD.6020909@knowprose.com> <200705312006.16479.arebenti@web.de> Message-ID: <465F2850.5030406@knowprose.com> arebenti at web.de wrote: > "Free Information Infrastructure"? > I like that. > Net neutrality > is the status quo. Except in the US no one is discussing it, so it could be > useful to codify it as a principle on the international level, something for > the UN. > Well, Net Neutrality might have been the status quo... It is rather difficult to say that international corporations and/or governments do not affect what is available through the network. We have the Great Firewall of China, we have seen incidents with Yahoo Groups and India... so yes, I think it is worth codifying in that 'People Have a Right to Access Information'. This follows what is known in the US as 'Freedom of Speech' - but because it exists in the US (as diluted as some believe it has become) it does not mean that it exists elsewhere. In fact, with 83% of the world not even able to access the internet at this point, it is difficult to say that government and corporations have already slowed progress. It is the majority which exists off the network, and while information still filters through without a network - would we like that to continue to be the status quo? Is it in the interest of a Third World government to allow people access to information? Oh, the conundrum... To allow information to freely flow is to give away power and open one's government to criticism. And what of access to Patent databases, Copyright information? Trademark information? Does a truly neutral network allow equal access to this information? As much as we detest some of the laws (if not all) related to Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks - to ask people to fight for their rights while blindfolded is a mimicry of Justice. > > There are probably also other issues e.g. human rights etc. etc. > But here it is easy because net neutrality is simply the world as it used to > be. We are watching a technological "counterrevolution". > Yes. And inaction will allow it to continue. I'm of the opinion that those of us with the *privilege* of access should be protecting the rights of those without access. Certainly, Free Software is one route - as is Network Neutrality. If the two could be combined as equally important instead of squabbling over the chicken and the egg, perhaps there is something that could be done. Of course, if the world were so perfect, there would be no need for this discussion. -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad and Tobago cnd at knowprose.com http://www.knowprose.com Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." ? Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Thu May 31 06:03:07 2007 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (l.d.misek-falkoff) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 00:03:07 -0400 Subject: [Wsis-pct] Net Neutrality in danger in the USA In-Reply-To: <465E3992.2000908@rad.net.id> References: <465CCC44.1070602@mdpi.net> <465E3992.2000908@rad.net.id> Message-ID: <8cbfe7410705302103n2b22ad06k7df497d08344c92@mail.gmail.com> Excellent forum discussion, and/but let us please bear in mind that "net neutrality" cannot really exist unless specific populations are not excluded, such as those with different processing options - very notably persons with disabilities impacting access, origination, and equality, and perhaps the more-young and more-older, for whom hard and soft e-bridges may prove a boon. Perhaps this is but "preaching to the choir here" as i*nclusion* principles are axiomatic for many, but there can be slippage in any domain - hence this sidebar. Thanking All and extending very best wishes, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. On 5/30/07, rusdiah rudi wrote: > > Richard Stallman wrote: > > I support their campaign, but think their definition of Net Neutrality > > is too narrow. Another sort of discrimination that some network > > providers engage in is discrimination based on what software the user > > runs. That should not be acceptable either. > > _______________________________________________ > > WSIS-PCT mailing list > > WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org > > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct > We agree with richard stallman... talking about Net neutrality and > Intenret... it should also include software and IPR... > > sometimes IPR and software are protected so that it is also not neutral > anymore, although it is being used by majority of the people because of > their power(right) not because of is is open. > > Regards, Rudi Rusdiah - APWKomitel / Indonesia > _______________________________________________ > WSIS-PCT mailing list > WSIS-PCT at fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/wsis-pct > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/wsis-pct/attachments/20070531/c518d7f8/attachment.htm