- EURO-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [EURO-Discuss] [GTLD-WG] [Chapter-delegates] BOLIVIA busca expertos para apoyar Programa Nacional de Tele-Educación para uso de Satélite Túpac Katari
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

I could tell you about our experiences from The University of the West Indies and the Caribbean Knowledge and Learning Network. Again from the Caribbean, Daniel Pimienta from Funredes in the Dominican Republic could also be a resource. - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= 2012/9/10 Houle Louis <Louis.Houle(a)oricom.ca> > Creo que la experienca de la Tele-Universidad de Quebec puede interessar > le! > > Louis Houle > Président > La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) > Louis.Houle(a)isocquebec.org > > Le 2012-09-06 10:26, Eduardo Rojas a écrit : > > Estimados colegas de la comunidad ISOC, > > El gobierno Boliviano me ha encomendado el diseño del Programa Nacional > de > > Uso Educativo del Satélite Túpac Katari en Bolivia. Consideramos que es > una > > oportunidad para involucrar a ka comunidad ISOC en el diseño de una > política > > pública de largo plazo y que tiene a ver con el uso de Internet y las > > comunicaciones satelitales. > > Les ruego ayudarnos a contactar personas con experiencia en > tele-educaciónque la experiencia en tele-education de la Télé > > interesadas en apoyar este proceso y visitar Bolivia por invitación de mi > > gobierno. > > MAS INFO: > > > http://www.fundacionredes.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article& > > > amp;id=116:oportunidad-laboral-tele-educacion&catid=7:noticias&Itemi > > d=1 > > Saludos cordiales, > > > > > > > > > > > > J. Eduardo Rojas > > Miembro del Directorio ISOC Bolivia > > Plaza Zenón Iturralde Nº 134 “B” (Zona San Jorge) > > Tel/fax: (5919) 2-2912598 > > CASILLA POSTAL: 14533 > > www.fundacionredes.org > > Móvil: 70647683 > > Skype/Twitter/Facebook/LinkedInk: “eduardosocio” > > La Paz / Bolivia – Latinoamérica > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed > > to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society > > Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs >

1 0

WG: Congratulations on your Nominating Committee appointment
by Wolf Ludwig Sept. 6, 2012

Sept. 6, 2012

Dear all, this is just to inform you that Veronica Cretu from Moldavia was selected by the ALAC as our next delegate to the NomCom. Congratulations from EURALO and we wish you all the best for this important function. Kind regards, Wolf Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote Thu, 06 Sep 2012 11:06 >Dear Veronica, > >the results are out and you have been selected by the ALAC to be one of >our five representatives on the ICANN Nominating Committee. >Congratulations! This is the first year that you hold that position. If >you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact. Also, please >be so kind to remember liaising with your region regularly when looking >for candidates. > >Warm regards, > >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >ALAC Chair > > EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

4 3

New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria
by Rudi Vansnick Sept. 6, 2012

Sept. 6, 2012

New gTLD Application Change Request Process and Criteria Requests for changes to applications may be submitted to the New gTLD Customer Service Center (CSC) by following these 2 steps: Download and complete a gTLD Application Change Request Form [DOCX, 632 KB]. Log into the CSC portal with the primary contact’s credentials and submit the Form. ICANN will evaluate the requested changes against the 7 criteria below and inform the applicant whether the changes are approved or denied. ICANN will post all approved changes in a change log on the gTLD microsite. Relevant changes made to public portions of the application will be posted. Changes made to confidential portions of the application will not be posted, but only summarized to protect confidentiality of the applicant. Posting will occur once the applicant confirms that changes made are correct as requested. The change log is currently under development and will be made available soon. Amended applications will be held for at least 30 days before passing on to the next phase in evaluation process to allow for public comment on that revised application. For example, an application in initial evaluation will not be identified as passing for at least 30 days until time for public comment enables an assessment of whether re-evaluation of the change is required. Decision Criteria Determination of whether changes will be approved will balance the following factors: Explanation – Is a reasonable explanation provided? Evidence that original submission was in error – Are there indicia to support an assertion that the change merely corrects an error? Other third parties affected – Does the change affect other third parties materially? Precedents – Is the change similar to others that have already been approved? Could the change lead others to request similar changes that could affect third parties or result in undesirable effects on the program? Fairness to applicants – Would allowing the change be construed as fair to the general community? Would disallowing the change be construed as unfair? Materiality – Would the change affect the evaluation score or require re-evaluation of some or all of the application? Would the change affect string contention or community priority consideration? Timing – Does the timing interfere with the evaluation process in some way? ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change. This could involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent application round. (AGB §1.2.7.) Note that per section 1.2.7 of the Applicant Guidebook, if at any time during the evaluation process information previously submitted by an applicant becomes untrue or inaccurate, the applicant must promptly notify ICANN via submission of the appropriate forms. This includes applicant-specific information such as changes in financial position and changes in ownership or control of the applicant. ICANN reserves the right to require a re-evaluation of the application in the event of a material change. This could involve additional fees or evaluation in a subsequent application round. Failure to notify ICANN of any change in circumstances that would render any information provided in the application false or misleading may result in denial of the application. Rudi Vansnick

1 0

DOODLE / Webinar on the WCIT with Global Partnership Regional Vice Presidents
by At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2012

Sept. 5, 2012

Dear All, At-Large staff have been requested to organise a Webinar to discuss the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) <https://community.icann.org/x/iQMQAg> with Global Partnership Regional Vice-Presidents. Please complete the attached Doodle poll to schedule this Webinar. http://doodle.com/acvqbsrfcmxm5y3y If you require interpretation for this call, please note the language next to your name on the Doodle poll - example: ³name² + (ES) or (FR). Interpretation will only be provided if there is sufficient demand. This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 04 September 2012 at 1900 UTC the date and time will be confirmed shortly thereafter. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 5

Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse ‘OpenStand’ Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce
by Rudi Vansnick Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Leading Global Standards Organizations Endorse ‘OpenStand’ Principles that Drive Innovation and Borderless Commerce IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C Invite Other Standards Organizations, Governments and Companies to Support Modern Paradigm for Global, Open Standards [PISCATAWAY, N.J., and WASHINGTON, D.C., United States; GENEVA, Switzerland, and http://www.w3.org/ —29 August 2012]— Five leading global organizations—IEEE, Internet Architecture Board (IAB), Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Internet Society and World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)—today announced that they have signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. The shared “OpenStand” principles—based on the effective and efficient standardization processes that have made the Internet and Web the premiere platforms for innovation and borderless commerce—are proven in their ability to foster competition and cooperation, support innovation and interoperability and drive market success. IEEE, IAB, IETF, Internet Society and W3C invite other standards organizations, governments, corporations and technology innovators globally to endorse the principles, which are available at open-stand.org. The OpenStand principles strive to encapsulate that successful standardization model and make it extendable across the contemporary, global economy’s gamut of technology spaces and markets. The principles comprise a modern paradigm in which the economics of global markets—fueled by technological innovation—drive global deployment of standards, regardless of their formal status within traditional bodies of national representation. The OpenStand principles demand: • cooperation among standards organizations; • adherence to due process, broad consensus, transparency, balance and openness in standards development; • commitment to technical merit, interoperability, competition, innovation and benefit to humanity; • availability of standards to all, and • voluntary adoption. “New dynamics and pressures on global industry have driven changes in the ways that standards are developed and adopted around the world,” said Steve Mills, president of the IEEE Standards Association. “Increasing globalization of markets, the rapid advancement of technology and intensifying time-to-market demands have forced industry to seek more efficient ways to define the global standards that help expand global markets. The OpenStand principles foster the more efficient international standardization paradigm that the world needs.” Added Leslie Daigle, chief Internet technology officer with the Internet Society: “International standards development for borderless economics is not ad hoc; rather, it has a paradigm—one that has demonstrated agility and is driven by technical merit. The OpenStand principles convey the power of bottom-up collaboration in harnessing global creativity and expertise to the standards of any technology space that will underpin the modern economy moving forward.” Standards developed and adopted via the OpenStand principles include IEEE standards for the Internet’s physical connectivity, IETF standards for end-to-end global Internet interoperability and the W3C standards for the World Wide Web. “The Internet and World Wide Web have fueled an economic and social transformation, touching billions of lives. Efficient standardization of so many technologies has been key to the success of the global Internet,” said Russ Housley, IETF chair. “These global standards were developed with a focus toward technical excellence and deployed through collaboration of many participants from all around the world. The results have literally changed the world, surpassing anything that has ever been achieved through any other standards-development model.” Globally adopted design-automation standards, which have paved the way for a giant leap forward in industry’s ability to define complex electronic solutions, provide another example of standards developed in the spirit of the OpenStand principles. Another technology space that figures to demand such standards over the next decades is the global smart-grid effort, which seeks to augment regional facilities for electricity generation, distribution, delivery and consumption with a two-way, end-to-end network for communications and control. “Think about all that the Internet and Web have enabled over the past 30 years, completely transforming society, government and commerce,” said W3C chief executive officer Jeff Jaffe. “It is remarkable that a small number of organizations following a small number of principles have had such a huge impact on humanity, innovation and competition in global markets.” Bernard Aboba, chair of the IAB: “The Internet has been built on specifications adopted voluntarily across the globe. By valuing running code, interoperability and deployment above formal status, the Internet has democratized the development of standards, enabling specifications originally developed outside of standards organizations to gain recognition based on their technical merit and adoption, contributing to the creation of global communities benefiting humanity. We now invite standards organizations, as well as governments, companies and individuals to join us at open-stand.org in order to affirm the principles that have nurtured the Internet and underpin many other important standards—and will continue to do so.” About IEEE IEEE, a large, global technical professional organization is dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. Through its highly cited publications, conferences, technology standards, and professional and educational activities, IEEE is the trusted voice on a wide variety of areas ranging from aerospace systems, computers and telecommunications to biomedical engineering, electric power and consumer electronics. Learn more at http://www.ieee.org. About the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) The IAB is chartered both as a committee of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and as an advisory body of the Internet Society (ISOC). Its responsibilities include architectural oversight of IETF activities, Internet Standards Process oversight and appeal, and the appointment of the RFC Editor. The IAB is also responsible for the management of the IETF protocol parameter registries. About the Internet Engineering Task Force The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large open international community of network designers, operators, vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. It is open to any interested individual. The IETF is an organised activity of the Internet Society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org. About the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international consortium where Member organizations, a full-time staff, and the public work together to develop Web standards. W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines designed to ensure long-term growth for the Web. Over 375 organizations are Members of the Consortium. W3C is jointly run by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (MIT CSAIL) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) headquartered in France and Keio University in Japan, and has additional Offices worldwide. For more information see http://www.w3.org/. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Tel : +32/(0)9/329.39.16 ------------ "The Internet is for everyone" ------------- www.internetsociety.be

2 1

Reaction from European Commission on ETNO / ITU / WCIT
by Rudi Vansnick Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

Below an extract from the attached document from European Commission with regards to the debates around ITU, ETNO and WCIT : Very clear positioning : > (1) The overarching objective of the European Union in relation to the WCIT is to ensure that > any amendment to the International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs) shall contribute > to the development of the information society for the benefit of all citizens and > telecommunications users world-wide, and users in the European Union in particular and > comply with the Union’s acquis and policy. > (2) The European Union shall take the following position on proposals for decisions by the > WCIT at its meeting in Dubai between 3rd and 14th December 2012 and any related > preparatory meetings: > (a) Do not support any proposals that conflict with the EU acquis, or introduce obligations on > operators which go beyond those already provided for under the EU acquis; > (b) Support proposals that respect the sovereignty of ITU member states and in particular > recognise those areas that are a national matter such as cybercrime, content, national security > and defence. > (c) Support proposals that seek to ensure that the revised ITRs remain high level, strategic and > technology neutral and oppose proposals to make ITU recommendations binding on ITU > member states and operating agencies;; > (d) Support any proposals to maintain the current scope of the ITRs and the current mandate > of the ITU, oppose any proposals to extend the scope to areas such as the routing of Internetbased > traffic, content-related issues; > (e) Support proposals to respect human rights in relation to international telecommunications, > support proposals to respect privacy and personal data protection in relation to personal data > and communications (subject to 2(a) above) > (f) Support measures to promote greater international cooperation in relation to the security of > networks used for international telecommunications traffic; > (g) Support pro-competitive measures intended to help achieve lower prices, and greater > transparency on prices, for international telecommunications traffic, based on commercial > negotiations in a free and fair marketplace; > (h) Do not support proposals to establish, within the ITU, mechanisms to settle disputes > between operators as such mechanisms are not necessary;; > (i) Support proposals that ensure that maritime communications can be charged in an > economically efficient way. > In order to make (2) (a) above explicit, EU agreement to any final outcome should be > explicitly conditional on the submission of a formal statement by the EU to other participants > regarding the applicability of EU regulatory provisions, as follows: > “In signing the Final Acts of the World Conference on International Telecommunications > (Dubai, 2012), the Delegations of the Member States of the European Union declare that > these States will apply the International Telecommunication Regulations in accordance with > their obligations under the Treaty establishing the European Union.”. Rudi Vansnick President - CEO rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be Mobile +32/(0)475/28.16.32 Tel : +32/(0)9/329.39.16 ------------ "The Internet is for everyone" ------------- www.internetsociety.be

2 1

Proposal procedure active- non-active ALSes
by Rudi Vansnick Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

Dear board members, As we see many ALSes in EURALO not being quite active, in a long term not having responded to emails and other communications, we have to be honest and show respect for those having been active all along the road and as such allowing EURALO to still be recognized as part of the ALAC constituency. However, it is clear the number of ALSes is an important factor for ALAC to show interest and participation in the concept of the multi-stakeholder process of ICANN. Therefor I propose we would act as does the NCUC by sending out an email requesting a response within a certain delay. If no response is received within the given timeframe, the ALS would be put on an "non-active" list. This would also allow us to have a correct quorum and election mechanism. This mechanism is a temporary procedure, not being voted on by the board, but as other decisions has also been taken without explicit approval of the board, I assume this one can also go through. I'm willing to work out the process of this proposal with timeframe and procedural aspects in order to allow "non-active" ALSes getting back into the active list once they have shown enough interest in the work of EURALO and ALAC. Just my eurocent idea Rudi Vansnick EURALO board member

11 16

Re: [EURO-Discuss] Dial-out, Adigo Bridge or Adobe Connect audio? / EURALO Monthly call - Tuesday 21 August 2012 at 1800 UTC
by Christopher Wilkinson Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

Good evening: Connectivity is so intermittent here that I have to leave the call soon. All the best CW On 21 Aug 2012, at 14:50, Gisella Gruber wrote: > Dear All, > > Please confirm whether you require a dial-out for today's call at 1800 > UTC. If so, please confirm your number. > > Also, if you no longer wish to be on the dial-out list, please do > let us > know. > > ADIGO forward us a list of our members who have asked for a dial-out > in > the past and we follow up on these for our monthly call. > > Thank you and we look forward to hearing back from you. > > Kind regards, > Gisella > > On 21/08/2012 13:27, "ICANN At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> The next EURALO call is scheduled for Tuesday, 21 August 2012 at >> 18:00 UTC >> (20:00 CEST). >> >> >> The agenda and call details can be found at: >> https://community.icann.org/x/NwoeAg >> >> Adobe Connect room: >> http://icann.adobeconnect.com/euralo >> >> EURALO Work space: >> https://community.icann.org/x/K5Qi >> >> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff >> at:staff@atlarge.icann.org. >> >> Thank you. >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and >> Nathalie >> Peregrine >> ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC >> E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EURO-Discuss mailing list >> EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org >

1 0

WWW III.0
by JFC Morfin Aug. 20, 2012

Aug. 20, 2012

Dar folks, I am surprised and somewhat dismayed that no one in "Civil Society" and @LARGEs seems interested and that no one is discussing the "W.W.W. 3.0" episode that is now developing. I name WWW 3.0 as the Whole World War at the "3.0" level that concerns us all. This episode is the attempt of the commercial funding (and not the ITU) to take over ultimate control of international standardization's future throughout and through the Internet standardization process (IAB/IETF/ISOC), reversing its documented position in RFC 3869 and 3935 and hijacking innovation trends (the "3.0" coming layers). 1. Why do I talk of "commercial funding"? Because the IAB warned us of the danger that we are facing and explained how to avoid it in RFC 3869 (Aug. 2004) and neither Governments, nor Civil Society or International Organizations, did anything about it. Only a small kernel of us tried to do something. In Aug. 2004, the IAB stated: "The principal thesis of this document is that if commercial funding is the main source of funding for future Internet research, the future of the Internet infrastructure could be in trouble. In addition to issues about which projects are funded, the funding source can also affect the content of the research, for example, towards or against the development of open standards, or taking varying degrees of care about the effect of the developed protocols on the other traffic on the Internet." This resulted from "the reduced U.S. Government funding and profit-focused, low-risk, short-term industry funding has been a decline in higher-risk but more innovative research activities. Industry has also been less interested in research to evolve the overall Internet architecture, because such work does not translate into a competitive advantage for the firm funding such work." Therefore, IAB believed "that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." * In Tunis the world's Governments left the US Government to take care of the Legacy Internet and did not get themselves involved in the emergence of any architectural research. * The IETF did not participate in the WSIS nor get involved in the IGF. * Civil society non-commercial sponsors or helpers did not join our successful efforts (so far) at the IETF: * To protect languages and cultures from engineering and business control. * Introduce a civil society technical place at the IETF (the Internet Users Contributing Group) * To obtain the validation of an Intelligent Use (IUse) Interface (IUI) concepts. * We feel alone in creating the Intelligent Use Task Force (IUTF) to explore, document, validate, and deploy the people centric capacity demanded by the WSIS. 2. Why do I use "3.0"? This is because in a nutshell if "2.0" has now an accepted meaning, the 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 "notions" (i.e. all of what can relate to a topic) can be perceived as: * "1.0" meaning: server centric monologue, and related * "2.0" meaning: network centric dialogue, and related * and "3.0" meaning: people centric polylogue, and related. So, * "Master/Slave" initial Web connections are "1.0". * Wikis, AJAX, WebSocket, etc. are "2.0". * The Internet+, the IUI (intelligent use interface), Midori/Hurd (the Microsoft's and Stallman's expected replacements for Windows and Linux), etc. are "3.0." Another "technical way" to understand this might be, in strict, simple, and robust concordance with RFC 1958, which defines the internet architecture, to say that: * 1.0 builds atop "plug to plug" hardware, * 2.0 builds atop "end to end" software, * and 3.0 atop "fringe to fringe" middleware. Two key points remain, however: what about "0.0" and "4.0" and exactly what is "3.0"? * "0.0" is everything that we do in order to communicate and understand information without digital tools in mind and that is generically called semiotics. "4.0" is what our brains do through digital semiotics that we can call brainware. * "3.0" is what RFC 1958 states that we must put at the fringe: network intelligent services. It is only some plugged layers on the user side (PLUS), extending the OSI communication model, along with its administration and governance. The "OSEX" model extended layers concern: * Security (and presentation in the Internet case). * Network services. * Interoperations between network applications and services In the users' life, it should appear as personal distributed middleware empowering browsers (in computers, mobiles, tablets, appliances, TVs, houses, cars, etc.) with intelligent open services that are free to choose their reference providers. One may understand a person's IUI as an "intelligent socket" system acting as private intelligent gateway network interfacing the OS of his/her machines and appliances in such a way that it makes that person the center of his/her freely selected worldwide digital ecosystem. 3. Why do I use "Whole"? This is because we do not discuss the Web or even the sole Internet any more. We discuss the whole digital ecosystem (WDE), i.e. all the physical or logical parallel interconnections to anything digital by our Intelligent Use Interface (IUI). So, what is at stake is the whole digital ecosystem industrial pollution (and corruption) and biased innovation. How? Through market driven commercially sponsored international standards, as was just explained by the IAB. To understand why: * a norm is the description of normality. Until now, norms were local (for a country) or professional (for a trade, skill, or task). * Norms, therefore, opposed globalization. This is why the trend that is pushed by the commercial funding is to unify normality, i.e. to shape the world as a unique market. Hundreds of wars and revolutions have failed to attain that target throughout history. Those who Richard Buckminster Fuller calls the "Grand Pirates" (in his "Operating Manual For Spaceship Earth") found a simpler way after WWI and WW II where they had lost control to engineers (from submarines and planes to the atom and computers): to recover control by using the common desire for international peace, human rights, democracy, etc. and the resulting needs for a better economy through a world market and rules. These rules in technologies are "standards". They say how to technically best build atop of norms. Therefore, they call for common uniform norms, and at the same time the international standards progressively shape a new "world normality" as, and for, a "common world market". This normality must be stable to protect market shares: as we know they call this stability the "status quo". Disruptive and fundamental innovations become a risk. TMs and incremental innovation are tuned to keep consumers buying. However, incremental innovation must be based upon international standards protecting from a competitor's breakthrough and have to be coherently ubiquitous to keep being accepted by the permanently reshaped customers (us). Industrial evolution is only permitted after amortization and only if it increases benefits. However, this is not the lead-users' (FLOSS, start-ups, user R&D, press) pace. What the Web 2.0 already did to the Internet 1.0 has to be digested and reshaped in a commercially favorable landscape of WebApps: this is the task of the International Standardization and marketing consensuses. The IDNA2008 consensus and its progressive propagation throughout the protocol space (WG/Precis) shows the coming of the IUI 3.0 and of the Internet+ (tested by Google+) whatever you want to call that Internet built-in trend as ineluctable. The International Standards bodies are to confuse and delay its concepts enough for it not to become: * An identified, independent, and acknowledged middleware standardization core area (IUTF) * A people centric enhanced cooperation capacity for the internet, social nets, telephone, radio, TV, digital music, e-books, etc. polycratic stewardship. Multistakeholderism must stay among commercial leaders, not to extend to everyone, especially if Civil Society and ethitechnics (ethical considerations in architectural design) are involved. 4. Why do I say "World"? This is because this does not only concern the sole US market, or the Western developed countries market, or even the emergent countries (India, China, Russia, etc.), but rather everywhere. This results from the WWWeb e-marketing field of competition. All is market driven and the market is global. No one must be able to endanger the commercial leaders' famous names and commercial rights anywhere in the world. The strategy for years has been called "internationalization": offensive business protection through the spread of the commercial leaders' industrial technology supported by: * favorable commercial conditions * correlative identical local standardization * permitted mass production increases, now on a multinational basis. A well known example is the Unicode consortium's (IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo!, Oracle...) successful technical "globalization": * internationalization of the media (International English capacity to quote any string in any script, which does not fully support the languages that use the scripts), being the maintainer of the ISO 10646 standard. * localization (local translation) of the English semantic, which does not support the various cultural semantics * language tagging for technical, operational, commercial non-neutral filtering purposes. This globalization is not a multilingualization that would set out to technically treat and culturally respect every language and its orthotypography the same as English is treated. 4. Why do I say "War"? Because of: 1. the TBT (Technical Barriers to Trade) rules The WTO rules do not permit a country to protect its people against a technology (or a TLD, as we see with Saudi Arabia and GAC protests) that is an international standard. <http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm>http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm. This is why the ultimate weapon to fight States' Barriers to Trade is to erode the credibility of their legitimate policy objectives, such as: the requirements for quality, the respect of cultures and minorities the protection of human health and safety, or the environment. The war is then on the Governments and the slogan for the "market forces" is to protect ... Human Rights (through free speech in using international market standards, for example) against people's Governments. One of the vectors is GNI (<http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/>http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/) where Microsoft, Google etc. decide on the people's best interest and defend their rights. This is far from democratically transparent technical standardization and network neutrality. Certainly civil and human rights are to be defended, but is it up to technical standardization bodies to defend them? In confusing the issues doesn't that harm the needed international standard technical credibility and lead to political restrictions affecting the free flow of information? 2. The competition on us, the users We (technical and civil society people) represent a real danger for industry leaders in being: Uncontrollable international competition, potentially rogue, possible divergent definition of what is a "better" Internet (in RFC 3935 IETF Mission Statement). Smart enough to introduce, propose, defend, and deploy more innovative and people centric architectural solutions (i.e. for a "3.0" information society that is "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona"). In the same way as the financial crisis is resulting from financially dominant people/entities (speculators and corporate interests), the international standardization mechanics is to protect market driven standardizing from lead users disrupting innovation. 5. The strategic impact. This battle is now conducted at the ITU, IAB/IETF, IEEE, ISO, Governments level. This results in particular from the Dubai December meeting (<http://world2012.itu.int/>http://world2012.itu.int/) that is to revise the International Telecommunications Rules (<http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx>http://www.itu.int/en/wcit-12/Pages/default.aspx) In this debate, commercial leaders plan to oppose and negotiate with States alone, since Civil Society is absent and users are represented by their Governments. In the Internet case, the IAB and IETF Chairs (the IAB Chair is a Microsoft employee) have prepared a draft document putting the (now ISOC affiliate) IETF in the commercial leaders' orbit. Being the facilitator of the Civil Society IETF iucg(a)ietf.org mailing list and one of the bootstrappers of the "3.0" IUTF (Intelligent Use Task Force), I posed the question of us, the IUsers, of the non-consulted IUCG channel and of our emergent IUTF standardization pole and called for a WG/RFC3869bis (a WG dedicated to rewrite RFC 3869), * To consensually adapt the description of the IAB/IETF position regarding the standardization referents (market or people, commerce or sustainable development), as we do not think that market and commercial interests can develop without the support of the end-users. * To document what the IETF means in its mission statement of "influencing those who design, use, and manage the Internet for it to work *better*" and to protect us against the RFC3869 IAB identified threats of sole merchant sponsoring bias of the Internet R&D. Our remarks have been acknowledged as part of the working file of the IAB (Track #202). We also maintain an information portal on the matter and our Civil Society Technical Rights in this area at <http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm>http://iutf.org/wiki/Modern_Global_Standards_Paradigm. The best place for debating and building up a Civil Society technical position that can really help as part of the IETF standardization process, at least to show that we actually feel concerned by the "constitution of the Internet" (the source code as documented by Dr. Lessig) is the non-WG (i.e. permanent) <mailto:iucg@ietf.org>iucg(a)ietf.org mailing list and helping us with the <http://iucg.org/wiki>http://iucg.org/wiki site. 6. A civil society ethitechnical doctrine More generally, there is a need for Civil Society to have a technical doctrine or at least mutually informed presence. The reason why is that technology choices are not ethically neutral. * As documented by the IAB RFC 3869, there are no technically rooted influences. They are commercial in the current episode, but they respond to (magnified) real political risks of influences. Civil Society has to make sure that the people's best interest is the reference. * Network neutrality is something difficult to enforce. The easiest way to get it is to get the technology designed in such a way that it is difficult or costly to not respect it (what is not the case today, but that a "3.0" evolution helps in making it very complex to filter the network). * A multilinguistic internet (the cybernetic of all the languages and cultures considered as equal on the common network) is to be explored and discussed. This is a typical civil society concern and, moreover, the real issue is our (we the people) relations to mecalanguages, i.e. our own native languages as spoken by our machines and in our anthtropobotic society ("on the internet, nobody knows I am a dog" or a machine). We did start in France an effort in that area, creating the MLTF, participating with MAAYA (<http://maaya.org>http://maaya.org) and ITU, UNESCO, SIL, Union Latine, Linguasphere, etc. This effort is to be resumed. * The civil society has accepted a stewardship inherited from the "1.0" legacy. Experience has been gained during the last decade regarding the various forms of governance tools, stakeholders, etc. common decision/trend processes, etc. while the 2.0 evolution and the 3.0 preparation will make several of them obsolete. * One of the major concerns, since it is traditionally a main part of the Internet Governance, is certainly the plain technological deployment of the DNS, content centric networking, and the resulting opportunities and evolutions in the understanding of the domain name nature, use, economy, and impact on commercial, IPR, and societal usages. To address these needs, a clear understanding of the very technical nature of the Internet tool and of its cons and pros is necessary. We cannot object to politics if they do not understand the internet nature when they discuss SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, HADOPI, etc. legislations and act as if we are actually no better than them. The IUCG is certainly the best place to discuss and document the Internet as a global and coherent system, under the control of engineers, in a way that civil society and decision and lawmakers can understand and master it. Help would certainly be welcome, in every language that governments and users use, as documented in ISO 3166. The best way to join the IUCG and to help us (me) is at <http://iucg.org/wiki/>http://iucg.org/wiki/ jfc

1 0

Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] European Commission responds to NCUC's letter on whois privacy concerns - Fwd: Ares(2012)966299 - Online privacy in ICANN
by Rudi Vansnick Aug. 14, 2012

Aug. 14, 2012

Dear all, Does this illustrate EURALO has failed in it's task ? We definitely are now in second row with the EU. An urgent meeting within EURALO is needed in order to re-align our activities, mission and objectives. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Robin Gross <Robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> > Datum: 10 augustus 2012 17:51:40 GMT+02:00 > Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Onderwerp: [NCSG-Discuss] European Commission responds to NCUC's letter on whois privacy concerns - Fwd: Ares(2012)966299 - Online privacy in ICANN > Antwoord aan: Robin Gross <Robin(a)IPJUSTICE.ORG> > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: EC ARES NOREPLY <DIGIT-NOREPLYARES(a)ec.europa.eu> >> Date: August 10, 2012 8:42:30 AM PDT >> To: "CAKE David (IP JUSTICE)" <dave(a)difference.com.au> >> To: "GROSS Robin (IP JUSTICE)" <Robin(a)ipjustice.org> >> Subject: Ares(2012)966299 - Online privacy in ICANN >> >> Please find attached document Ares(2012)966299 concerning "Online privacy in ICANN" sent by Mr HARTOG Eddy on 10/08/2012. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Note: This e-mail was automatically generated by the European Commission's central mail registration system. >> Replies by e-mail must be addressed to the original sender HARTOG Eddy (mailto:Eddy.Hartog@ec.europa.eu). >> Remarque : Cet e-mail a été généré automatiquement par le système d'enregistrement central du courrier de la Commission européenne. >> Toute réponse éventuelle par e-mail doit être adressée à l'expéditeur en personne, à savoir HARTOG Eddy (mailto:Eddy.Hartog@ec.europa.eu). > > >

4 3