June 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

ICANN Posts Draft Community Travel Support Document for Public Comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 4, 2008

June 4, 2008

ICANN Posts Draft Community Travel Support Document 3 June 2008 * View document at: http://www.icann.org/topics/travel-support/draft-procedure-22may08.htm * Send comments to: travel-support-draft(a)icann.org * View comments at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/ At the February Delhi meeting, there was a public consultation regarding ICANN's approach to travel support funding for the community. After the public consultation in Delhi, a public comment period was held, and the feedback was analyzed and noted on-line http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-policy/msg00009.html. After receiving and analyzing comments on this draft, it will be updated if needed, and final results reviewed with the Board in Paris. Ultimately, the Board will need to adopt (or reject) the budget impact of this new proposal when the Board approves the budget in Paris. Note that the ALAC, on behalf of the At-Large community, provided advice to the Board on the subject of travel support - you may review that statement at: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/files/atlarge/ALAC%20Statement%20on%20Travel%2… -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Next ALAC Teleconference: 10 June 1330 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

Dear ALAC members, This is to remind you that the next ALAC teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, 10 June at 1330 UTC. Please visit the meeting page to find participation instructions, a dial-out list and a tentative agenda. The agenda will soon be finalized. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?10_june_2008 There will be a briefing session on the Draft Operational Plan and Budget starting right before the ALAC meeting at 1230 UTC. We will shortly put up a meeting page with all the documents and a slide show prepared by ICANN¹s Chief Financial Officer Mr. Kevin Wilson. You are all welcome to join this presentation. An official invitation will follow soon. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ALAC May Teleconferences Summary Minutes
by At-Large Staff June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

Dear ALAC members, We uploaded the summary minutes, action items and audio recordings for the ALAC May teleconferences to the meeting pages. Additionally, you can also find the summary minutes attached to this email below. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?27_may_2008 Please note that the minutes are subject to change and are not official before adoption at the next ALAC meeting. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org May Meetings Summary Minutes 13 May Meeting: Participants: C Langdon-Orr (Chair), D Thompson, G Shearman, S Herlein Leite, V Scartezini, A Muehlberg, W Seltzer, H Xue, R Guerra, A Greenberg, B Brendler, S Bachollet Absent: C Aguirre, J Ovidio Salguiero, H Diakite, J Morris Staff: N Ashton-Hart, F Teboul, M Langenegger Minutes taken by Staff in the first instance. The Meeting Minutes of the last meeting were approved. Liaison Report The Board liaison gave an overview of the current issues at the Board level. W Seltzer noted that the Board has not indicated a timeline at their last meeting regarding the introduction of new gTLDs. She further noted that there was no decision about whether trademarks should be respected at the TLD level. With regards to dispute resolution at the TLD level, the Board members seemed to lean towards having an independent dispute resolution process. W Seltzer noted that it was important to prevent ICANN from getting involved with moral issues such as defining what TLDs should be allowed on grounds of morality because this was not in the purview of ICANN¹s mission. R Guerra noted he agreed with W Seltzer¹s statement. H Xue gave a short overview on current IDN issues. She pointed out that one of the most contentious political issues in the IDN sphere concerns objections. It is currently not clear what should happen if one country disputes a string proposed by another. With regards to the IDN liaison report, the Chair noted that she was concerned that the Fasttrack process for IDN ccTLDs was getting too complicated. A Muehlberg asked the IDN liaison if is it was possible to have introductory material. H Xue noted that she planned writing an introduction on IDNs in plain language. It was suggested to have the Staff remind the Working group liaisons to post their reports before ALAC meetings to post to the Website at at large policy working groups ALS Application status The Staff informed the participants about the ALS application status. (http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pDH-2Ym3VBKcDC3mA5enWfw&hl=en) ALS Vote A number of voice votes were announced: B Brendler and R Guerra asked that a vote be recorded that followed all the regional advice. S Bachollet asked that a vote be recorded to follow the regional advise for all applications except France@Large on which he will not vote. It was decided that the ICANN ombudsman should be involved to offer his good offices in advance of a formal request for action by the applicant france@large. C Langdon-Orr will approach the ombudsman to ask him how he could formally be engaged by the ALAC. The staff will inform the applicant of France@Large of the result of the vote. R Guerra noted that he would like to have a vote to change the wording of the ALS votes. A Greenberg noted that he tried to look up the most current ALAC rules of procedure and could not find them on the website. The Staff agreed to send out a link to those most current. It seemed to be generally felt among the ALAC members that the wording of the ALS votes should be changed to more simple language. The Staff will re-distribute the final document on the process mechanism on ALS application that was adopted in San Juan. The issue will be resolved on the mailing list by the ALAC members. Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements launched since the last Meeting The Chair proposed having a having a standing agenda item for discussing current ALAC statements. No objection was made to this proposal. Staff will ensure that this is included in forthcoming agendas. B Brendler noted that there was some concern among the NARALO members about the fact that only a small number of At-Large members seemed to participate in the policy process. He said that there will always be ALAC members who do not have an opinion on certain issues and that the way forward could perhaps be to have something like a roll call before statements are adopted to have more of an active consensus. A Greenberg pointed out he was in favour of there always being a formal vote on ALAC statements. He noted that in the Joint Statement of Users on GNSO improvements there were statements that he would not have wanted to be associated with would he have been able to withdraw his support, but that he had participated in the confidential discussions on that document not on his own behalf but as a community leader, and as a result he had not registered his personal objection. Were a separate vote to be held on ALAC statements, he would have been able to have recorded this personal view. The Chair noted that the process used for the three statements was by its nature iterative, and that the process for forthcoming work should be discussed in Paris on Sunday in order to further improve it going forward. There was general agreement with this way of proceeding. There seemed to be conflicting views held on the role of NomCom members and Working groups. The issue could not be resolved on this conference and will be continued online. The Chair noted that she felt sorry for A Greenberg for the criticism he received after not having passed on to NARALO the joint statement of users the that was labelled confidential. Flowchart of Statements The Staff asked if it would it be useful to provide a flowchart-based view of how the three statements were created and the various levels of comments taken. The Chair said that she welcomed this suggestion. The Staff will produce a flowchart-based view on the creation of ALAC statements. The Staff will send out a meeting planer to reconvene this meeting in 5 to 7 days to be able to plan for the meeting in Paris. Agenda Items 4 and 5 of the Items for decision at this meeting and all the Agenda Items for discussion only will be carried over to the next ALAC meeting. The Chair adjourned the meeting at 1505 UTC. 27 May meeting (The 13 May meeting was resumed and outstanding agenda items were carried over) Participants: N Thu Hue, V Scartezini, C Langdon-Orr (Chair), R Sherwood, H Xue (IDN liaison), W Seltzer (Board Liaison), J Morris (ccNSO liaison), F Seye Sylla, H Diakite, D Kasole, A Greenberg, J Ovidio Salgueiro Apologies: C Aguirre, R Guerra, A Muehlberg Staff: F Teboul, M Langenegger, N Ashton-Hart Minutes taken by Staff in first instance There was no quorum at the beginning of the meeting. List moderation The ALAC members discussed about how to proceed with the currently moderated mailing list member. S Bachollet suggested lifting list moderation for the person in question. R Sherwood noted that he was in favour of banning the person in question because excessive posting leads to list fatigue and discouraged the participation of other mailing list members. He suggested putting the issue to a broader poll including the list participant. The Chair noted that she sent three warnings to the person in question during moderation. The issue will go to broader polling. The question will be whether the moderated mailing list subscriber should be banned or not will be put to the list subscribers. Public Comment periods H Diakite noted that 45 days would be desirable to the current mechanism. V Scartezini also believes the additional time would give them some flexibility. The Board Liaison was asked to flag this as an issue at the Board level. The Chair noted that E Leibovitch made an excellent template for the Briefings. F Seye Silla suggested having more reminders and having smaller pieces at a time. J Morris noted that the translations often come up to 3 weeks after the comment period has started. She therefore suggested that the comment period start when the translations have been distributed. The ALAC will explore the matter of public comment periods and the best mechanism to increase the ability of all to participate further and come up with a statement in due course. The Staff encouraged the ALAC members to participate in the multilingual survey and to encourage others to participate. The matters of the ALAC working group and representation of regions will be subject of the OneDay Paris workshop in Paris (Sunday 22 June). The next ALAC teleconference will be on 10 June at 1330 UTC.

1 0

REMINDER: Briefing Session on Fast Flux Hosting 5 June 1300 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you about the Briefing Session on Fast Flux Hosting starting at 1300 UTC this coming Thursday. Dave Piscitello who will host this meeting has prepared a Powerpoint presentation, which is posted on the meeting page. There will also be an Adobe Connect link where we will be able to show the slides in real time. To join the presentation, please follow the participation instructions on the meeting page. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?fast_flux_hosting There will be no Spanish and French interpretation for this call as there was not sufficient interest for this service. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fw: [A2k] US Supreme Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

All, FYI. I believe this will have serious ramifications to the current structure of the GNSO. In particular the IPC and the BC. Implications as Robert illuded to as "Core Values" for the Paris meeting may also be realized. ICANN itself will be impacted accordingly given it's lack of openness and Transparency as related to this decision. Of course as always other opinions will very. But they will do so at their own risk. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Sent: Jun 2, 2008 4:20 PM >To: a2k discuss list <a2k(a)lists.essential.org> >Subject: [A2k] US Supreme Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World > >-- >[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > >http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/06/02/highest-us-court-hands-big-win-to- >free-speech-advocates-in-the-ip-world/ > >Highest US Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World >Major League Baseball v. CBC Distribution >By Allonn E. Levy, Esq. >2 June 2008 > >By doing nothing today the U.S. Supreme Court handed a big victory to >those concerned with the ever-tightening spigot of free-flowing >commercial information. After a change in MLB’s licensing scheme in >2005 and the subsequent denial of a license to use the names and >statistics of major league baseball players in its for-profit >“fantasy leagues,” St. Louis based C.B.C. Distribution sued Major >League Baseball in late 2005. Presumably understanding the potential >reach of the issues that would be decided in the case, the Major >League Players association intervened in the case as well. C.B.C. >claimed that even though MLB would not grant a license for C.B.C. to >use the information, C.B.C. nevertheless had a First Amendment right >to utilize the names and data – even though it was exploiting the >information for commercial gain. > >M.L.B. argued that the information was protected by federal copyright >laws, contract law, and the state law rights of publicity. The trial >Court disagreed and in 2006 found in favor of C.B.C. on summary >judgment. In October 2007, the Eight Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal >issued an opinion upholding the trial court’s findings. The Eight >Circuit’s carefully reasoned opinion first corrected certain elements >in the trial court’s opinion and expressly held that C.B.C.’s >activities did violate Missouri’s state law Right of Publicity >statutes. However, the Court held that despite the statutory >violation, the activity was protected by the right of Free Speech >because the data was publicly available for all to see. The Court >also noted that there was no possibility of confusion by consumers or >any suggestion that the players were endorsing a particular product >or site. In fact, the Court noted, the activities of C.B.C. were >likely increasing interest in baseball – a pastime that itself allows >players and owners to reap hansom pecuniary rewards. > >Today, the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously granted the requests of >certain parties to file “friend of court” briefs (meaning the Court >considered those briefs) but denied M.L.B.’s petition for >Certiorari. While not technically citable as “Supreme Court >precedent” by taking no action, the U.S. Supreme Court will be seen >by most as tacitly approving the intermediate court’s opinion. By >considering the petition and declining to take up the case >practitioners and other Courts around the country who have been >monitoring this case closely will likely take note. > >In the past, some District and Circuit Courts have been hesitant to >uphold First Amendment rights in the commercial context. At least in >this instance, however, both the trial and intermediate courts had >little difficulty in doing so. In its opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge >Arnold writing for the majority addressed the issue concisely: "It >would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment >right to use information that is available to everyone." The idea >however, has not been uniformly adopted. Cases originating in >California have been extremely protective of the Right of Publicity >protecting such rights as the mimicked voices of actors, likenesses >and such. Some feel that the Ninth Circuit’s proximity to Hollywood >has made it more sensitive to the pecuniary rights of celebrities >than to the First Amendment rights of individuals and businesses. > >Curiously, the Supreme Court has been silent on the clash between the >First Amendment and rights of publicity for decades. Its last case >on the topic was Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting – a 1977 >case that held that the commercial exploitation of a performance was >not protected Free Speech and thus was compensable under a Right of >Publicity theory. But that case was decided by the narrowest of >margins – a 5-4 vote. It also did not provide much direction to >practitioners and courts as to where and upon what criterion the line >between Free Speech and commercial publicity rights would be drawn. > >How important is the High Court’s decision today to let stand the >Eighth Circuit’s opinion? In the brief time the opinion has been >published – and despite a then-pending petition for certiorari, the >opinion has already been cited 36 times by commentators, parties and >at least one other Court. > >Today’s refusal to review (and potentially reverse) the Eighth >Circuit opinion secures greater rights to access available public >information and utilize it for commercial gain. The High Court’s >decision means the Eighth Circuit’s carefully considered opinion will >become the last word on this issue – at least for the moment. An >obvious “win” for Free Speech advocates and “netizens” concerned with >ensuring open access to information on the Internet, the case also >helps the burgeoning field of Internet information consolidators who >help consumers collect information and process it. Expect to see the >case cited frequently in the near future as more and more courts will >be facing cases where Internet based information companies battle >these issues out with content holders. > >Research Notes: > >District Court Decision – C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc. v. >Major League Baseball Advanced Media L.P. and Major League Baseball >Players Assoc. 443 F.Supp. 2d 1077 (E. Dist. Mo 2006) [superseded by >Appellate opinion] > >Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision – C.B.C. Distribution >and Marketing Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media L.P. and >Major League Baseball Players Assoc. 505 F.3d. 818 (8th Cir. 2007). >[U.S. Cert. Denied 6/02/08] > >U.S. Supreme Court Order Denying Certiorari – Major League Baseball, >et Al. v. C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing. ____ S.Ct.____, 2008 WL >512723 (U.S.), 76 USLW 3471 > > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >A2k mailing list >A2k(a)lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Do they exist or what
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

JFC and all, I think LB has hit on a very good point. The ALAC in it's current form cannot reasonably represent users world wide as it is predominantly a "Closed shop". -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Jun 2, 2008 7:53 PM >To: LB <lbleriot(a)gmail.com> >Cc: listegenerale(a)franceatlarge.org, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Do they exist or what > >At 23:11 02/06/2008, LB wrote: >>I propose a motion: france@wide having found that ALAC does not exist, >>and considering that it is necessary to have an ALAC, propose to >>@larges worldwide to resume this good idea and create a World At Large >>Advisory Council (WALAC). > >Louis, >you are going to confuse everyone. > >1. I suppose that "france@wide" is a Google Traduction's fancy. > >- france@large is a French ALS incorporated in 2000 pretty active >ever since as an @large organisation which decided to reorganise to >welcome the other @large people in Paris. > >- world@wide is a small foundation specialising in offering free >domain name protection and hosting to Internet Governance and @large >oriented projects. > >2. we plan your "oualalac" (I understand it meens an "open use, at >large, alac" get to gether diner in Paris. We wait for the answer of >Wolf to know to best answer the Staff suggestion. Sebastien already answered. > >3. The WALAC/IALAC names could be misused: I asked world@wide to >protect them as domain names. > >4. I suggest we do not discuss anymore the ALAC decision concerning >france@large. This is something that we first have to discuss in >detail with Euralo as they proposed. And possibly transfer to the >Ombudsman and BoD if it is confirmed there were influences. > >I would suggest that you use your mailing broadsides to help me >cooling down the situation. We now have enough ways to practically >protect the individual @larges' interests without making noise or in >invading the ICANN meeting (however fun that could be). They want to >ignore us as you underline it, may be should we do the same ? This is >a question I raise. > >Everyone knows now they did not want us to vote at the first Euralo >Summit. This is over now. Probably better we just delegate a few >people at the ICANN meeting and we report at Saturday 28 >InternetCamp, sending them photos, rather than to repeat the Olympic >Flame incidents? > >OK? > >jfc > >___ > >Louis, >tu va confuser tout le monde ! > >1. Je suppose qie "france@wide" est une blague de Google Traduction. > >- france@large est une ALS française incoporée en 2000 et assez >active depuis en tant qu'organisation @large qui a décidé de se >réorganiser pour accueillir les autres @larges à Paris. > >- world@wide est une petite fondation specialisée dans l'offre >gratuite de protection de noms de domaine et d'hébergement pour les >projets orientés vers la Gouvernance de l'Internet et les @larges. > >2. Nous planifions ton diner de rencontre "oualalac (que je comprends >comme "open use, at large, alac") à Paris. Nous attendins la réponse >de World pour savoir comment répondre au mieux à la suggestion du >Staff. Sébastien a déjà répondu. > >3. Les noms WALAC et IALAC pourraient être dangereux. J'ai demandé à >world@wide de les enregistrer en protection. > >4. Je suggère que nous ne discutions plus de la décision ALAC >concernant france@large. C'est quelque chose que nous avons d'abord à >discuster avec Euralo puisqu'ils l'ont proposé. Nous aurons >probablement à le transferer ensuite à l'Ombudsman et au CA s'il se >confirme qu'il y a eu des interférences. > >Je te suggèrerais de réserver tes "bordées de haute-mail" à l'aider à >détendre la situation. Nous avons déhà gagné suffisament d'avantages >pour protéger concrêtement les interêts des @large individuels sans >avoir à faire du bruit inutile qui peut être mal compris, ou à >envahir la réunion ICANN (bien que je conçois que cela pourrait être >très amusant). Ils veulent nous ignorer comme tu le soulignes; >peut-être devrions nous faire de même. C'est une question que je pose. > >Tout le monde sait maintenant qu'ils ne voulait pas que nous votions >au premier sommet européen. Ceci est entendu maintenant. Il est donc >probablemnt mieux que nous leur déléguions que quelques personne lors >du meeting ICANN, et que nous fassions le point à l'InternetCamp de >la Grande Arche le samedi 28 (leur envoyant des photos), plutot que >de renouveller les incidents de la Flame Olympique. > >OK ? >jfc > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Do they exist or what
by LB June 2, 2008

June 2, 2008

Jefsey, je fais un effort avec Google Traduction .... on our behalf, the members of france@large, you asked that the ALAC that: 1) france@large be accredited - they said we did not exist. 2) france@large invit at the Paris meeting at an informal summit of all @larges - nobody responded. 3) france@large having a vision of @larges forged over the years, if we all had the same one - no one has commented. The staff has invited everyone ito a dinner in Paris, so we started (however, we do not exist) to register. So, the staff standed us up. And invited us to organize ourselves. So, you have invited the Euralo Chair and out of politeness before inviting everyone. He has not even responded. Do you think really that ALAC is real, outside the dreams of ICANN and conference-call its "elected" members. I would have liked to know, in being a candidate at the election of the ALAC, but since we do not exist we do not have the right to be an ALS, and therefore I cannot be a cadidate, except if I register in a German ALS . I propose a motion: france@wide having found that ALAC does not exist, and considering that it is necessary to have an ALAC, propose to @larges worldwide to resume this good idea and create a World At Large Advisory Council (WALAC). et que tu organises un repas "Oualalac" sympa dans mon quartier à Nantes avec bombardes et binious, le 21 juin au soir avant d'aller chanter. Zaurez le temps de rentrer à temps : il ne se passera rien le 22 à Paris puisqu'ils n'existent pas ! -- LB

2 1

Tentative Go-Live New gTLD Application Period: Feb09
by Danny Younger June 1, 2008

June 1, 2008

http://www.icann.org/presentations/INTA2008ICANN.pdf In a presentation to the International Trademark Association 130th Meeting in Berlin, Germany, Tim Cole presented some slides detailing the new gTLD and IDN rollout timetables. Key Dates: June 08 -- Phase 1 Global Communications Campaign July 08 -- Tentative Publication of Draft RFP Oct 08 -- Tentative Final RFP Publication Oct 08 -- Phase 2 Global Communications Campaign Feb 09 -- Tentative Go-Live gTLD Application Period

1 0

Invitation - GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet Governance - Paris, 23 Juin 2008
by Robert Guerra June 1, 2008

June 1, 2008

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Meryem Marzouki <Meryem.Marzouki(a)lip6.fr> Date: Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM Subject: [Coalition] Invitation - GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet Governance - Paris, 23 Juin 2008 To: Public Voice <coalition(a)mailman.thepublicvoice.org> Dear all, This invitation will probably be of interest to subscribers to this list. Best regards, Meryem Marzouki -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr ::::::::::::::::::::::::: Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction A GigaNet workshop, organized in cooperation with GDR TICS and DEL Networks Paris, France - 23 June 2008 - 08:30-13:30 University Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle – Institut du Monde Anglophone Invitation to participate The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) will hold its first workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Field in Construction", in Paris, France, on Monday 23 June 2003, 08:30-13:30. French co-organizers and sponsors are: GDR- CNRS TICS, DEL-CNRS network, Sciences Po, U. Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle, U. Pierre et Marie Curie, and LIP6 Laboratory. The purpose of the workshop, the first of its sort, is to allow scholars involved in Internet Governance-related research to describe their ongoing research projects to other scholars in the field, in order to share ideas, forge possible collaborations, and identify emerging research themes in the field. Scholars from various academic disciplines and all regions of the world are expected to contribute to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of collectively building this interdisciplinary research field. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field of global Internet governance. The workshop is mainly organized around 3 roundtables, fostering lively and fruitful discussions. Panelists selected among the authors of submitted contributions will discuss global Internet governance research activities dealing with: models, players and democratic principles; regulation policies and regulatory issues; and regional perspectives and sociocultural issues. Attendance at the workshop is free and open to all interested parties, but registration is required. Workshop agenda and detailed program, registration form, contribution abstracts, as well as other practical information, are available at the workshop website: http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t. Contact: Meryem Marzouki, Workshop Chair LIP6-UPMC-CNRS, France (Meryem.Marzouki(a)lip6.fr) Workshop website: http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t _______________________________________________ Coalition mailing list Coalition(a)mailman.epic.org http://right.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/coalition

1 0