From roseman@isoc.org Mon Nov 4 13:46:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B13C821E81BB for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:46:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sRPmI6Pm2Wro for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0243.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3650521E8104 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 13:46:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from DM2PR06MB382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.101.151) by DM2PR06MB384.namprd06.prod.outlook.com (10.141.101.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.815.6; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:46:10 +0000 Received: from DM2PR06MB382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.14.140]) by DM2PR06MB382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.14.59]) with mapi id 15.00.0815.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:46:10 +0000 From: Walda Roseman To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Thread-Topic: join list Thread-Index: Ac7Zp0WM9v3SQIFFRhu0Cba6cAEtdQ== Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:46:08 +0000 Message-ID: <0a3670c8ba13475eadfc952ef6e00db5@DM2PR06MB382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [2001:67c:370:160:74ce:d0e4:5f81:999a] x-forefront-prvs: 0020414413 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(199002)(189002)(73894003)(76176001)(54356001)(15202345003)(53806001)(46102001)(19580395003)(51856001)(4396001)(83072001)(77096001)(81686001)(49866001)(47736001)(47976001)(33646001)(50986001)(15975445006)(19609705001)(56816003)(65816001)(2656002)(76786001)(80976001)(76576001)(31966008)(47446002)(76796001)(83322001)(74502001)(74316001)(74662001)(79102001)(80022001)(63696002)(85306002)(87266001)(76482001)(54316002)(221733001)(69226001)(81342001)(81542001)(56776001)(16236675002)(74366001)(59766001)(74876001)(77982001)(81816001)(19300405004)(74706001)(24736002)(3826001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:DM2PR06MB384; H:DM2PR06MB382.namprd06.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:2001:67c:370:160:74ce:d0e4:5f81:999a; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_0a3670c8ba13475eadfc952ef6e00db5DM2PR06MB382namprd06pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: isoc.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 13:52:17 -0800 Subject: [Internetgovtech] join list X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 21:46:17 -0000 --_000_0a3670c8ba13475eadfc952ef6e00db5DM2PR06MB382namprd06pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --_000_0a3670c8ba13475eadfc952ef6e00db5DM2PR06MB382namprd06pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 

--_000_0a3670c8ba13475eadfc952ef6e00db5DM2PR06MB382namprd06pro_-- From desiree@relax.co.uk Mon Nov 4 14:00:38 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAD5021E80AC for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:00:38 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cVilgeibpJXw for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:00:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-f43.google.com (mail-bk0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E472721F9A40 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 14:00:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id mz11so2613154bkb.16 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:00:31 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:to :mime-version; bh=6W1mVEbWVXzPGUgQlUI/xI1zIcpj5fNy895bT8uTVhI=; b=RuPwHZaiTLe3Anyj4+A2X8/yn7GKwdkssWXC+olUusTuzVF5CP63QuRuDBNFZMDioQ RtA3bHU98JylUNRTd0WfXP0R5Ooiiz/wlSLBfuMH82px5Rh2HdSDdhe89jZDWMBhNfZQ zMUpx4EDR7KRaWz8fNsJwhVvn0G7uojWSrsk3F19u5QgRhPDzwIwsxoo2nLtBuGJQ28+ cBC/TdZye6YH/sVTGA4fK7EPTl4XDF2zivxZtXwbM0+XzwxhRSzvl1qPw0hBRMZVD5sY +btwqZrsr2AZUkUfqNuD19wPblkYp87SRVgbO1AQYrR6GgyL/NoWpQR0SgDvWjEcWqEU RsNA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmNyu+rMcpon8ex4DgyeaWpneH6BM8pjKinwBN8MhDFVUPMOyDWFlkiyJzYGimvyGwuHyy5 X-Received: by 10.204.167.140 with SMTP id q12mr10700994bky.2.1383602431174; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:00:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp-b44c.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-b44c.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.180.76]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z6sm16863847bkn.8.2013.11.04.14.00.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:00:30 -0800 (PST) From: Desiree Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8E518E39-220B-45A1-BA35-D71B1C144026" Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:00:29 +0000 Message-Id: <277B6911-AAD2-4A11-AF0B-D1764EA55908@relax.co.uk> To: internetgovtech@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 14:02:45 -0800 Subject: [Internetgovtech] fiy - X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 22:00:39 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8E518E39-220B-45A1-BA35-D71B1C144026 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Since I'm attending this Igov session here at the ietf 88 I take an = opportunity to test your newly set up email box. :-) The ITU has launched what they call a "consultation" about the Role of = Governments in MSM - advertised but it's really a web page with = comments.=20 An opportunity to ignore - however- a couple of talk about limiting the = role of governments. lol http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 Cheers Desiree -- --Apple-Mail=_8E518E39-220B-45A1-BA35-D71B1C144026 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Hi

Since I'm attending this Igov session here at the ietf 88 I take an opportunity to test your newly set up email box. :-)

The ITU has launched what they call a "consultation" about the Role of Governments in MSM - advertised but it's really a web page with comments. 

An opportunity to ignore - however- a couple of talk about limiting the role of governments. lol
--Apple-Mail=_8E518E39-220B-45A1-BA35-D71B1C144026-- From arturo.servin@gmail.com Mon Nov 4 15:17:52 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3EB21E828F for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:17:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6vkyftu2BGjn for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:17:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040BA21E829B for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:17:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-wg0-f51.google.com with SMTP id l18so2715574wgh.18 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:17:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=EAwgOskmsNU1BIar4EoliNslBcgJHvnvl6ROdfr/vr0=; b=LPUYnLNYzydD3prvuYzlEW22zjkGizx8fWpH34pivYRInhRBGUd9SuKGILGxGYW4s2 QQrHCOdj3SkJdQ5GaUwZeygF7z94crQNrF9rGI1yMthsOd2Ybegyjt/Pc2fQuDYWoLCv W5ml8mDODpJrqBABtWXuIAQTyuWs1pJ6+YvAL/eX5hdFOOnHBi+3thZum1rwVKGPam6D p2/crma5i1KxSs9baYS0G69VhEgxMbOpRw0A9mMfVDj32lEkFXQG4wHWtNyjIE5aR6ZQ GpyhpqCHoyXkRc+X0S6BKQqUJHEXG9VcksL9fVrk1NJ1AMVOH7mDhdeuEYjHX8Cd3D1y t9AQ== X-Received: by 10.180.92.10 with SMTP id ci10mr14420909wib.41.1383607063007; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 15:17:43 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.42.4 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 15:17:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <277B6911-AAD2-4A11-AF0B-D1764EA55908@relax.co.uk> References: <277B6911-AAD2-4A11-AF0B-D1764EA55908@relax.co.uk> From: Arturo Servin Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 21:17:22 -0200 Message-ID: To: Desiree Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043892977fda2804ea621f5f Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] fiy - X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 23:17:53 -0000 --f46d043892977fda2804ea621f5f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Well, the social-media-digg style is not bad at all. /as On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Desiree wrote: > Hi > > Since I'm attending this Igov session here at the ietf 88 I take an > opportunity to test your newly set up email box. :-) > > The ITU has launched what they call a "consultation" about the Role of > Governments in MSM - advertised but it's really a web page with comments. > > An opportunity to ignore - however- a couple of talk about limiting the > role of governments. lol > > http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 > > Cheers > Desiree > -- > > > _______________________________________________ > Internetgovtech mailing list > Internetgovtech@iab.org > https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech > > --f46d043892977fda2804ea621f5f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, the social-media-digg style is not bad at a= ll.

/as

=
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Desiree <= desiree@relax.co.uk> wrote:
Hi
<= br>
Since I'm attending this Igov session here at the ietf 88= I take an opportunity to test your newly set up email box. :-)

The ITU has launched what they call a "consultatio= n" about the Role of Governments in MSM - advertised but it's=A0re= ally a web page with comments.=A0

An opportunity to igno= re - however- a couple of=A0talk about limiting the role of governments. lo= l

_____= __________________________________________
Internetgovtech mailing list
Internetgovtech@iab.org
https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/internetgovtech


--f46d043892977fda2804ea621f5f-- From chsharp@cisco.com Mon Nov 4 16:20:42 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 569CC21E80DC for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:20:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tb3ShVQo6pnG for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:20:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7765B21E8304 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 16:20:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1565; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1383610836; x=1384820436; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=Z0lfF5idBukzTQCzWe3hQ5YQK/Zl5WgTs/NMx6mDGhw=; b=CXco1KD+PnI7Vy0OhW3p5yTyMwoS0IHrMbOOVBMC/WFakA7IeueLa7Qg GaU8DL4dR3hOCGl1ArZF+cmBQ45MI0Y5pwX25FAdoxhc8J1KeTSngAymo MIlNyayQmP0ey7KDscb4Vg3H2c66suILxMBP8swB/mb9LnvZiNMuHVHG/ c=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhIFAA05eFKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4U784gScWdIIlAQEBAwEdXBACAQgYLjIlAgQOBYd7Bg2+KY4PgRYzB4MggQ4DiQiPAoEvkFqDJoFxOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,636,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="277637272" Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2013 00:20:35 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rA50KYab025540 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:20:34 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.8.157]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:20:34 -0600 From: "Chip Sharp (chsharp)" To: Desiree Thread-Topic: [Internetgovtech] fiy - Thread-Index: AQHO2bQqgbtSsdQYGU+t4y2LQxBT55oWKuMA Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 00:20:34 +0000 Message-ID: References: <277B6911-AAD2-4A11-AF0B-D1764EA55908@relax.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.117.153.58] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <2E887912DED58E4EB6C6149A504336F2@emea.cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] fiy - X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 00:20:42 -0000 Desiree, Something to keep in mind concerning this consultation... This is actually a Secretary General consultation, not an ITU consultation.= At ITU Council, the Secretary General asked for the ITU to hold a consult= ation on this issue that would feed into the Council Working Group on Inter= national Internet-related Public Policy. The ITU Council declined to call = for a consultation, but it was stated that the Secretary General could hold= his own consultation and submit the results to the CWG under his name. Th= is will be submitted as an information document to the meeting and there is= no requirement for the meeting to consider or act on an information docume= nt.=20 This is different from the consultations being held by the CWG-Internet as = described in its Terms of Reference. It isn't clear that the result of the two different consultations will be t= reated very differently at the meeting itself, but they are two different p= rocesses. Chip >=20 > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Desiree wrote: > Hi >=20 > Since I'm attending this Igov session here at the ietf 88 I take an oppor= tunity to test your newly set up email box. :-) >=20 > The ITU has launched what they call a "consultation" about the Role of Go= vernments in MSM - advertised but it's really a web page with comments.=20 >=20 > An opportunity to ignore - however- a couple of talk about limiting the r= ole of governments. lol >=20 > http://ideas.itu.int/category/1424 >=20 > Cheers > Desiree > -- From dogwallah@gmail.com Mon Nov 4 19:34:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC5811E821F for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:34:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3YODdhN0Myoh for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:34:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bk0-x22c.google.com (mail-bk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDE4B11E8232 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:34:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-bk0-f44.google.com with SMTP id mx11so681706bkb.17 for ; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:34:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=PJ1nAVX/KWOFFJtgT5EkQ7lRO08cCrOe8ywy+QzfyUw=; b=fUyfM67GR0Xg+2IJpPegOi+jeQWKSti46tXsLoC9TCKfXy5NrqmYerxnAsvWYFhCeh 0LmgJqj+uHOIQknFNN8CNxnohf9iKbiE1dOuvyVQnTI6hlMR0y+7m4uFTQxdKXmAqHyS ByITeds5ef/Wp+V23qL7PUpVkUWkvQapkS/0CM5p5OPwkFMjyeycDjtib0AQVRwSfFuM qwx7JKp4uOCOOiIS0eS+Ta36LPN8BErzxhyupMyfXleWNzSu+pAEA90wFQxJU0eGN/RZ wmzoPJOoY85PCGxNOKi1tPLWK3qNJEAwNg38c+KY1t09/iRDO4INlL6L98ksThCb9BXu quQA== X-Received: by 10.204.247.71 with SMTP id mb7mr11988896bkb.7.1383622471908; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 19:34:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: dogwallah@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.62.2 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Nov 2013 19:33:51 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <277B6911-AAD2-4A11-AF0B-D1764EA55908@relax.co.uk> From: McTim Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 22:33:51 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: hK7LB5s_ifEIls677cSxeZPYU4s Message-ID: To: Arturo Servin Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org, Desiree Subject: Re: [Internetgovtech] fiy - X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 03:34:34 -0000 On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Arturo Servin wrote: > > Well, the social-media-digg style is not bad at all. except that the first time I try to sign in, I get: "Error(s): Email address has already been registered." ;-( Regards, McTim From hallam@gmail.com Tue Nov 12 15:03:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092F621E8090 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.099, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbbmjvGRdEhG for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78CC011E8147 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-la0-f43.google.com with SMTP id n7so4791099lam.30 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:19 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=tieARWXH0/Q5Ikx4pD6vaKtIoeRm97Z91lAP/1s2ixI=; b=VtLsB8dEJ+UtDZOXXDIGt7OLzEOVLd33uQAd+fHShxhCeshqbtrR/IBH7Hn9uiTEV1 PpkwefMbG8leojCsggwRQf8iIMliIVJA5lJ2mLaOVyozCWtjzRarfWIZg3MkGyU1AxQQ e6LKJXOSw89+mOGyPEeMUw5N40phX0HUy+wVT20E1qBx898uQXjbUCHRAdaNmjpWAYeg SequUSkQ+APCHJONwUhuhTpGWHirXpG8N5BFcBE8a7D0wycCEIic1yG2TruBBUrSezef dGOOctEyX54jfcmxC55j+0CTLqOU7fVeTHnQOTQkGyFsGlm59vV+NHSKfm9iTCP4lnW7 HupA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.6.74 with SMTP id y10mr29525798lay.16.1384297399205; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.46.98 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 15:03:19 -0800 Message-ID: From: Phillip Hallam-Baker To: internetgovtech@iab.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0149401abe451204eb02da57 Subject: [Internetgovtech] Things for governments to do X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:03:22 -0000 --089e0149401abe451204eb02da57 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 One of the big challenges in managing lots of volunteers is that everyone wants to do the tasks that they know about which are typically the tasks that are already being done. A role that many governments could usefully contribute is to provide reference cryptographic services analogous to the reference time services that many weights and measures organizations already provide (e.g. Greenwich observatory, NIST, etc.). There is a need for trustworthy timestamps in a wide number of protocols. While commercial notaries can provide this service at a technical level, the legal validity of such services might be expensive to prove in court. Having a national reference assures users that there is some level of government recognition of the status of the service. A national cryptographic bureau would play an analogous role to the weights and measures bureaus and provide reference services against which commercial providers would benchmark their offerings from time to time. It would not be necessary for every country to operate such a bureau just as it is not necessary for every country to provide reference weights and measures. As with weights and measures based on physical objects there is a value to having multiple reference labs but unlike with physical objects there is no penalty for having a large number. As with weights and measures, the primary consumers of the services would be commercial providers who would in turn provide services to other businesses. Governments could of course operate a direct service but that would entail the usual commercial risks, overheads and constraints. I don't see CA certificate services as being among the services that would be provided except where the government is already providing those functions. Where governments recognize PKI, they recognize particular CAs for particular purposes and with specific validation requirements. These are not commodity services suitable for inter-government standardization. The services I see as being useful are timestamp authority services, and pre-committed unpredictable sources. These are or at least can be provided on a commodity basis. A timestamp authority produces a chain of hash values where each successive hash value is computed from the previous hash value and inputs from one or more external sources. For a national notary the sources would be commercial notaries (and potentially peer national notaries). A pre-committed unpredictable source is formed by choosing a random seed s and a hash function H(x) and computing H(...H(s)) to a very large power. The provider releases H^n(s) at the start, H^n-1(s) on the next 'tick', H^n-2(s) on the next and so on. All the outputs of the authority are digitally signed. Combining the two functions allows a notarized document to be fixed in time with near absolute certainty. This is of great benefit in fixing evidence in actual and potential lawsuits. For example, data recorded on digital cameras, etc. may be fixed and the time at which it is fixed put beyond reasonable doubt. Contracts, bids, trades may be fixed with recognized legal authority. The last time serious consideration was given to these possibilities was the mid 1990s when many governments passed forward thinking legislation to support digital signatures, electronic notaries, etc. Unfortunately much of this thought proved to be perhaps a little too forward thinking. Just as it took business 40 years to understand the full potential of containerized transport, business is only just beginning to realize the full potential of the Web. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/ --089e0149401abe451204eb02da57 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
One of the big challenges in managing lots of volunteers i= s that everyone wants to do the tasks that they know about which are typica= lly the tasks that are already being done.

A role that m= any governments could usefully contribute is to provide reference cryptogra= phic services analogous to the reference time services that many weights an= d measures organizations already provide (e.g. Greenwich observatory, NIST,= etc.).

There is a need for trustworthy timestamps in a wide nu= mber of protocols. While commercial notaries can provide this service at a = technical level, the legal validity of such services might be expensive to = prove in court. Having a national reference assures users that there is som= e level of government recognition of the status of the service.

A national cryptographic bureau would play an analogous= role to the weights and measures bureaus and provide reference services ag= ainst which commercial providers would benchmark their offerings from time = to time. It would not be necessary for every country to operate such a bure= au just as it is not necessary for every country to provide reference weigh= ts and measures. As with weights and measures based on physical objects the= re is a value to having multiple reference labs but unlike with physical ob= jects there is no penalty for having a large number.

As with weights and measures, the primary consumers of = the services would be commercial providers who would in turn provide servic= es to other businesses. Governments could of course operate a direct servic= e but that would entail the usual commercial risks, overheads and constrain= ts.


I don't see CA certificate services = as being among the services that would be provided except where the governm= ent is already providing those functions. Where governments recognize PKI, = they recognize particular CAs for particular purposes and with specific val= idation requirements. These are not commodity services suitable for inter-g= overnment standardization. The services I see as being useful are timestamp= authority services, and pre-committed unpredictable sources. These are or = at least can be provided on a commodity basis.


A timestamp authority produces a chain o= f hash values where each successive hash value is computed from the previou= s hash value and inputs from one or more external sources. For a national n= otary the sources would be commercial notaries (and potentially peer nation= al notaries).

A pre-committed=A0unpredictable=A0source is formed by c= hoosing a random seed s and a hash function H(x) and computing H(...H(s)) t= o a very large power. The provider releases H^n(s) at the start, H^n-1(s) o= n the next 'tick', H^n-2(s) on the next and so on.

All the outputs of the authority are digitally signed.<= /div>


Combining the two functions allows = a notarized document to be fixed in time with near absolute certainty. This= is of great benefit in fixing evidence in actual and potential lawsuits. F= or example, data recorded on digital cameras, etc. may be fixed and the tim= e at which it is fixed put beyond reasonable doubt. Contracts, bids, trades= may be fixed with recognized legal authority.

The last time serious consideration was given to these = possibilities was the mid 1990s when many governments passed forward thinki= ng legislation to support digital signatures, electronic notaries, etc. Unf= ortunately much of this thought proved to be perhaps a little too forward t= hinking. Just as it took business 40 years to understand the full potential= of containerized transport, business is only just beginning to realize the= full potential of the Web.



--089e0149401abe451204eb02da57-- From marc.blanchet@viagenie.ca Mon Nov 18 15:18:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 469C11AE6B8 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:18:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 55UrwDrXsaHL for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:18:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262911AE6B2 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 15:18:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.0.4.206] (host130.200-71-227.telecom.net.ar [200.71.227.130]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 05F94403D3 for ; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 18:18:02 -0500 (EST) From: Marc Blanchet Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_282EB431-B044-4FAD-8248-40D4CEFD1D2F" Message-Id: Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:17:51 -0300 To: internetgovtech@iab.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822) Subject: [Internetgovtech] on the 1net coalition X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 23:18:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_282EB431-B044-4FAD-8248-40D4CEFD1D2F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 FYI. Marc. = http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov13-en.htm Resolution Re: Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTIONS 2013.11.17.01 =96 2013.11.17.02 =20 Resolution Re: Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Whereas, on 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board authorized the CEO to, = among other things, "work with other key organizations and leaders to = establish a coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative" = ("Coalition"), in order to address increasing concerns regarding the = effectiveness of a "global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance = system." Whereas, the Board considered that without strengthening a global, = coherent approach to Internet governance, ongoing and emerging issues = will not be properly addressed in a collective, collaborative way, which = may inadvertently affect the operational unity of the Internet, = consistent with ICANN's mandate. Whereas, on 28 September 2013, the Board further resolved that ". . . = should the CEO recommend an additional longer term strategy based on = Coalition results, the CEO shall present such a plan of action, = including any additional financial resources required, for further = consideration by the Board." Whereas, the CEO has executed the mandate of the 28 September 2013 Board = resolution and has helped facilitate a number of activities, including: = (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced strategy panel = now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet Governance;" (ii) = development of and participation in the "1net initiative"; and (iii) = encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on = multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place = in Brazil in April 2014. Whereas, the CEO regularly reported to the Board as these activities = were emerging, to which the Board provided insight, guidance, and = support through reports at Board meetings on 23 October 2013, 8 November = 2013 and 16 November 2013. Whereas, these three initiatives are now commencing, the CEO confirmed a = plan for ICANN to continue participating with all other interested = participants. Whereas, the Board looks forward to the next stages of these initiatives = and to the discussion and debate that has been ignited on global = multi-stakeholder participation in Internet governance. Whereas, ICANN is participating in these initiatives in furtherance of = ICANN's mission and anticipates continued participation in these = endeavors well into the future. Whereas, the Board welcomes the collaboration with I* organizations that = led to the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet Cooperation. = (See = http://www.1net.org/news/entry/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-of-inter= net-cooperation/en). Whereas, the Board wishes to express its appreciation for the management = team accomplishing the objectives of the 28 September 2013 resolution, = and the Board finds it admirable that such progress has been made in = such a short period of time. Resolved (2013.11.17.01), the Board hereby directs the CEO to continue = supporting the three emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizes = that ICANN, as part of the Internet ecosystem, is just one of the many = participants providing resources and support to the following = initiatives: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced = strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet = Governance"; (ii) development and participation in the "1net = initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for = a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to = take place in Brazil in April 2014. Resolved (2013.11.17.02), the Board highly encourages all parties = interested in the Internet ecosystem and Internet governance to = participate in these emerging initiatives and notes the importance of an = active and committed participation by all stakeholders. RATIONALE FOR RESOLUTIONS 2013.11.17.01 =96 2013.11.17.02 This resolution is a continuation of the Board's 28 September 2013 = resolution providing ICANN's President and CEO with a mandate to explore = how ICANN could coordinate with stakeholders from across the globe to = address the pressing issue of the future of Internet governance. In = September, the Board directed the President and CEO to work towards the = establishment of a coalition to start an effort to form an Internet = cooperation agenda, and to do so in a manner consistent with ICANN's = mission. That initial work has been completed, and the Board thanks the = President and CEO for his leadership in this regard and the rest of the = management team for all of their efforts. Since the 28 September resolution, a substantial amount of coordination = work has been achieved, and the discussions among stakeholders around = the world have been ignited. In less than two months, the following = initiatives have formed: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously = announced panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet = Governance;" (ii) development and participation in the 1net initiative; = and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on = multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place = in Brazil in April 2014. To remain accountable to ICANN's mission and community, the Board = recognizes that the future of the work of this Coalition and in these = initiatives is not ICANN's; while ICANN has important contributions to = make to the work of the Coalition, the necessary work now requires all = other parties interested in the Internet ecosystem to participate in = this work. This Coalition requires multi-stakeholder involvement and = support. Encouraging further coordination among all Internet stakeholders does = not have any immediate impact on the security, stability or resiliency = of the DNS, though the outcomes of these initiatives are likely to have = positive benefits on the coordination of DNS stability and security = issues in the future. This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which public = comment is not required. Published on 17 November 2013= --Apple-Mail=_282EB431-B044-4FAD-8248-40D4CEFD1D2F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
FYI. = Marc.

http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-17nov1= 3-en.htm

  1. Resolution Re: Multi-Stakeholder Internet = Governance
 
  1. Resolution Re: = Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance

    Whereas, on 28 September 2013, the ICANN Board authorized the CEO to, among other = things, "work with other key organizations and leaders to establish a = coalition towards the formation of a movement or initiative" = ("Coalition"), in order to address increasing concerns regarding the = effectiveness of a "global, open, multi-stakeholder Internet governance = system."

    Whereas, the Board considered that without strengthening a = global, coherent approach to Internet governance, ongoing and emerging = issues will not be properly addressed in a collective, collaborative = way, which may inadvertently affect the operational unity of the = Internet, consistent with ICANN's mandate.

    Whereas, on 28 = September 2013, the Board further resolved that ". . . should the CEO = recommend an additional longer term strategy based on Coalition results, = the CEO shall present such a plan of action, including any additional = financial resources required, for further consideration by the = Board."

    Whereas, the CEO has executed the mandate of the 28 September = 2013 Board resolution and has helped facilitate a number of activities, = including: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced = strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet = Governance;" (ii) development of and participation in the "1net = initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for = a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to = take place in Brazil in April 2014.

    Whereas, the CEO regularly reported to the Board = as these activities were emerging, to which the Board provided insight, = guidance, and support through reports at Board meetings on 23 October = 2013, 8 November 2013 and 16 November 2013.

    Whereas, these three initiatives are now = commencing, the CEO confirmed a plan for ICANN to continue = participating with all other interested participants.

    Whereas, the Board = looks forward to the next stages of these initiatives and to the = discussion and debate that has been ignited on global multi-stakeholder = participation in Internet governance.

    Whereas, ICANN is participating in = these initiatives in furtherance of ICANN's mission and = anticipates continued participation in these endeavors well into the = future.

    Whereas, the Board welcomes the collaboration with I* = organizations that led to the Montevideo Statement on the Future of = Internet Cooperation. (See http://www.1net.org/news/entry/montevideo-statement-on-the-future-o= f-internet-cooperation/en).

    Whereas, the Board wishes to express its = appreciation for the management team accomplishing the objectives of the = 28 September 2013 resolution, and the Board finds it admirable that such = progress has been made in such a short period of time.

    Resolved = (2013.11.17.01), the Board hereby directs the CEO to continue supporting = the three emerging and evolving initiatives and recognizes = that ICANN, as part of the Internet ecosystem, is just one of = the many participants providing resources and support to the following = initiatives: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously announced = strategy panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet = Governance"; (ii) development and participation in the "1net = initiative"; and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for = a meeting on multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to = take place in Brazil in April 2014.

    Resolved (2013.11.17.02), the Board highly = encourages all parties interested in the Internet ecosystem and Internet = governance to participate in these emerging initiatives and notes the = importance of an active and committed participation by all = stakeholders.

    RATIONALE FOR = RESOLUTIONS 2013.11.17.01 =96 2013.11.17.02

    This resolution is a continuation of the = Board's 28 September 2013 resolution providing ICANN's President and CEO with a mandate to explore = how ICANN could coordinate with stakeholders from = across the globe to address the pressing issue of the future of Internet = governance. In September, the Board directed the President and CEO to = work towards the establishment of a coalition to start an effort to form = an Internet cooperation agenda, and to do so in a manner consistent = with ICANN's mission. That initial work has been completed, = and the Board thanks the President and CEO for his leadership in this = regard and the rest of the management team for all of their = efforts.

    Since = the 28 September resolution, a substantial amount of coordination work = has been achieved, and the discussions among stakeholders around the = world have been ignited. In less than two months, the following = initiatives have formed: (i) the expansion and launch of a previously = announced panel now entitled "Panel on the Future of Internet = Governance;" (ii) development and participation in the 1net initiative; = and (iii) encouraging the establishment of and support for a meeting on = multi-stakeholder Internet governance that is now likely to take place = in Brazil in April 2014.

    To remain accountable to ICANN's mission and community, the Board recognizes that = the future of the work of this Coalition and in these initiatives is = not ICANN's; while ICANN has important = contributions to make to the work of the Coalition, the necessary work = now requires all other parties interested in the Internet ecosystem to = participate in this work. This Coalition requires multi-stakeholder = involvement and support.

    Encouraging further coordination among all = Internet stakeholders does not have any immediate impact on the = security, stability or resiliency of the DNS, though the outcomes of these initiatives are likely = to have positive benefits on the coordination of DNS stability and security = issues in the future.

    This is an Organizational Administrative Function for which = public comment is not required.

Published on 17 November = 2013

= --Apple-Mail=_282EB431-B044-4FAD-8248-40D4CEFD1D2F-- From rcallon@juniper.net Wed Nov 20 18:47:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 805221ADF7D for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:47:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NFE7CZy7XPXp for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:47:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.183]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9DB21A1F3F for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2013 18:47:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail9-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.232) by CH1EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.43.70.58) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.22; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:04 +0000 Received: from mail9-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail9-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F318F1201D1 for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:03 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -6 X-BigFish: VPS-6(z579ehzdb82h9371Ic89bh119bI3166Mc85dhde40hzz1f42h2148h208ch1ee6h1de0h1fdah2073h2146h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1fc6hzz1de098h17326ah8275bh8275dh18c673h1c8fb4h2ba5I1de097h186068h1954cbhz2fh109h2a8h839hd24hf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h19ceh1ad9h1b0ah1bceh224fh1d07h1d0ch1d2eh1d3fh1dc1h1de9h1dfeh1dffh1fe8h1ff5h20f0h2216h22d0h9a9j34h1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail9-ch1: domain of juniper.net designates 157.56.240.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.101; envelope-from=rcallon@juniper.net; helo=BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; X-Forefront-Antispam-Report-Untrusted: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454003)(45074003)(189002)(199002)(126464002)(46102001)(31966008)(16236675002)(76576001)(74316001)(53806001)(15202345003)(18717965001)(51856001)(74706001)(76786001)(76482001)(56816003)(33646001)(76796001)(74876001)(561944002)(77982001)(85306002)(74366001)(76176001)(50986001)(56776001)(54316002)(66066001)(81342001)(87266001)(80022001)(19609705001)(2656002)(15975445006)(16601075003)(65816001)(47976001)(19580395003)(47446002)(63696002)(69226001)(54356001)(59766001)(74662001)(19300405004)(81816001)(79102001)(74502001)(4396001)(47736001)(83072001)(49866001)(81686001)(87936001)(83322001)(81542001)(19580405001)(80976001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:CO2PR05MB636; H:CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; CLIP:66.129.241.17; FPR:; RD:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en; Received: from mail9-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail9-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1385002021402570_7281; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.251]) by mail9-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DA0622004F for ; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.101) by CH1EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (10.43.70.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.227.3; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:01 +0000 Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) by BL2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.255.100.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.16.383.1; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:00 +0000 Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) by CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.199.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.820.5; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:46:51 +0000 Received: from CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) by CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.199.24]) with mapi id 15.00.0820.005; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:46:45 +0000 From: Ross Callon To: "internetgovtech@iab.org" Thread-Topic: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15, 2013 Thread-Index: AQHO4oa5N4Uj53vL2UW3JOy4YBmP7povAfIA Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:46:44 +0000 Message-ID: <6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58@CO2PR05MB636.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.17] x-forefront-prvs: 0037FD6480 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% Subject: [Internetgovtech] FW: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15, 2013 X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 02:47:18 -0000 --_004_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_ Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_" --_000_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Forwarded with permission. This looks like something of interest to this li= st. Ross From: isoc-advisory-council-bounces@elists.isoc.org [mailto:isoc-advisory-c= ouncil-bounces@elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:27 PM To: isoc-advisory-council@elists.isoc.org Subject: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 15, 2013 Dear AC members, Please find the second of what is planned to be regular updates on key Inte= rnet governance activities. Future updates will be shorter. The backgroun= d included here is to help layout today's overall environment. In the last month, there have been many discussions around two developments= that took place just prior to and during the Internet Governance Forum (IG= F) in Bali. One was the Montevideo Statement, which was distrib= uted on 7 October and was well received at the IGF. The other was the unexp= ected announcement at the IGF of an Internet Governance Summit, or High Lev= el Meeting, to be held in Brazil in early May 2014. I* CEO Meetings: With respect to the Montevideo meeting and the statement that was issued af= terwards, some background might be helpful -- these I* CEO meetings have ta= ken place regularly for the past three years (usually twice a year, several= days). They were mainly to build relations/common cause across the I* org= anizations. We work to understand our respective positions on key issues = (and hopefully are aligned) or at least to minimize surprises. The meeting= s were not meant to be a "standing venue", but rather to build stronger rel= ations. The meetings are convened and chaired by ISOC, specifically, by me= , as ISOC President & CEO, at the request of the other I* organizations. T= his reflects our broad Mission and the breadth of our organization and resp= onsibilities. Finally, the I* organizations are: IAB, IANA functions oper= ator, ICANN, IETF, ISOC, the 5 RIR's, and W3C. Unlike past meetings, the I* community felt that the surveillance issues (a= nd the reactions we were seeing affecting the Internet and users) were so s= erious that we needed to go on record. And, thanks to Ra=FAl Echeberria fo= r his leadership throughout the meeting around such a statement. As virtua= lly all (maybe all) of the organizations had previously been on record for = many of these points, we felt it was appropriate to go forward. Heading to the IGF week, the I* CEO's had planned to work together to "cata= lyze community-wide efforts towards the evolution of global multistakeholde= r Internet cooperation" as called for in the Montevideo Statement. This too= k on an added urgency and dimension with the unexpected announcement of the= Brazil meeting. Brazil High Level Meeting This "Brazil summit" came out of a discussion between ICANN and the Brazili= an government and followed the Montevideo I* CEO meeting. This announcemen= t caused concern on the part of many of those present at the IGF for variou= s reasons: it was seen to be potentially competing with the IGF, the role o= f governments vs. other stakeholders was unclear, the timing prior to sever= al important ITU and UN meetings raised concerns about its outcomes and the= ir impact on those meetings. There was also a mistaken assumption that the = Brazil meeting was linked to the collective I* organization's leadership as= an outcrop of the Montevideo statement. In the course of the discussions at the IGF and since, what was originally = labeled a "Summit" evolved to a "high level meeting." Discussions are taki= ng place with the Brazilians and a number of organizations, and the I* orga= nizations are also involved, including ISOC. While nothing is official, th= e purpose of the Conference is expected to address strengthening Internet c= ooperation by discussing high-level principles and institutional frameworks= . This conference is not meant to produce proposals on specific Internet po= licy issues. Montevideo Statement and catalyzing community-wide efforts Many of the discussions during the IGF week focused on clarifying and gaini= ng support for some possible initiatives (and necessarily included the Braz= il meeting), as well as gaining support from other communities including th= e private sector, civil society and governments. These discussions also aim= ed to clarify/advance: 1) statements about a shift in leadership away from = the United States as a result of disclosures about surveillance and the sub= sequent impact on the principles and reality of the open global Internet, a= nd 2) continuing discussions about the future of Internet Governance and wh= at was called Internet Governance gaps. Possible Initiatives Discussions at IGF and elsewhere seem to be coalescing around the following= initiatives: 1. Gauging support for a multi-stakeholder coalition/dialogue/initiativ= e that would help close an "Internet Governance gap" a) the purpose of and level of formality/structures to support this coa= lition, etc. b) assessing support for a grass-roots campaign (incl. a significant on= line presence) 2. The possibility of an independent high level panel to make recommend= ations on IG principles and recommend frameworks/institutions for IG 3. Less directly, gauging need for developing a possible new framework/= mechanisms/institution for Internet governance IANA and ICANN Globalization An additional topic of discussion was the globalization of IANA and ICANN. = This is largely (but not unanimously) seen to be separate from the Internet= governance topics above. There is a lot of work being done on this by the = I* CEO's and ICANN, and separate updates will be sent on this going forward= . Status of Initiatives There have been many meetings held during and since the IGF (some I* CEO me= etings and many other smaller group meetings), and it has been quite a movi= ng target. To cut to the current status: Coalition/Dialogue: With respect to the first "initiative" above, the emerg= ing purpose seems to be: catalyse a multi-stakeholder movement to develop, = through an open processes, a framework for evolving, broadening and strengt= hening Internet Governance/Cooperation arrangements, and to advocate for it= s adoption. In discussions since the IGF with a small group from Industry, Civil Societ= y, I*, and others there seems to be support for a global dialogue (not a Co= alition) and a name was agreed 1Net. ICANN has put up the basic website (s= ee: http://www.1Net.org) and the NRO/AfriNIC CEO is t= he lead. There are discussions underway with respect to finalizing the pur= pose/charter, the management going forward and a possible steering committe= e. Other open questions remain about the grassroots campaign, what will act= ually be done with the "dialogue/website", etc. And, all of these should = be resolved by the broader community. There are important funding implications as well, and this is expected to b= e a point of discussion not only within the broader "Dialogue", but with th= e I* CEO's as well. ISOC is watching this space carefully to see what might be useful, while be= ing mindful that each organization needs to thoroughly engage its own commu= nities. This Dialogue should not be a substitute for that engagement. Our= independent and yet aligned voices are very important components of any In= ternet governance dialogue, and were clearly instrumental in our considerab= le success throughout WSIS I and II. Independent high level panel - this has been modified significantly since i= t was first moved at the Montevideo I* CEO meeting (where in full transpare= ncy, virtually all gathered had significant objections to an All Star high = level panel - for all the reasons one would expect in our community). It is now meant to be only one possible input and has a more Internet infor= med panel. There will be additional information available shortly. IMPORTANT - NEW!! Issues Framework: Internet Challenges: A framework for t= ackling the hard political, technical, operational and social problems faci= ng the Internet Finally, I would like to point to a resource ISOC rcently developed in orde= r to better inform various discussions on Internet Governance Issues. This = framework for tackling Internet issues was developed by Leslie Daigle and m= yself in advance of ISOC's opening speech at the IGF. We pulled it togethe= r over the course of a day and a half, so please help us improve it. The framework is, in part, a response to what I believe are somewhat cavali= er statements being made about Internet governance gaps and so-called orpha= n issues which entirely belie the underlying complexity of the issues, and/= or ignore efforts already underway to help address them. We felt we needed = to engage the broader community in a more thoughtful discussion. This was = well received in the IGF, and at the recent IETF meeting where it was also = featured. The objective is to categorize possible solution paths for the various IG c= hallenges we all see. This is expected to help in subsequent discussions o= f roles or new mechanisms. We are looking for input across many communities and would very much apprec= iate any comments you may have. Over the next few weeks you will see more s= pecific requests and opportunities to inform, use, and further develop this= framework. Find out more at: http://www.internetsociety.org/internetstrong and please do start discussions on this "framework/taxonomy" on our lists, = with members, as well as on other lists. We need broad input and review, th= ese are cross-cutting issues and require the engagement of many different s= takeholders. Closing: We will post regular updates to our members, and on our website/blogs, etc.= We look forward to working together to help make the Internet stronger an= d we encourage everyone to get engaged in these discussions - locally, nati= onally, regionally and, of course internationally. And, bring your friend= s and colleagues - the more voices the better. Best regards, Lynn St.Amour --_000_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Forwarded with permission= . This looks like something of interest to this list.

 <= /p>

Ross

 <= /p>

From: isoc-adv= isory-council-bounces@elists.isoc.org [mailto:isoc-advisory-council-bounces= @elists.isoc.org] On Behalf Of Lynn St.Amour
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 11:27 PM
To: isoc-advisory-council@elists.isoc.org
Subject: [isoc-advisory-council] Internet Governance Update - Nov. 1= 5, 2013

 

Dear AC members,<= o:p>


Please find the second of what is planned to be regular updates on key= Internet governance activities.  Future updates will be&nbs= p;shorter.  The background included here is to help lay= out today’s overall environment. 
 
In the last month, there have been many discussions around two develop= ments that took place just prior to and during the Internet Governance=  Forum (IGF) in Bali.  One was the http://www.1Net.org) and the NRO/AfriNIC CEO is the lead.  There are discussions= underway with respect to finalizing the purpose/charter, the manageme= nt going forward and a possible steering committee. Other open qu= estions remain about the grassroots campaign, what will actually be done with the “dialogue/website”, etc.   And= , all of these should be resolved by the broader community.
 
There are important funding implications as well, and this is expected= to be a point of discussion not only within the broader “Dialog= ue”, but with the I* CEO’s as well. 
 
ISOC is watching this space carefully to see what might be useful, whi= le being mindful that each organization needs to thoroughly engage its= own communities.  This Dialogue should not be a substitute = for that engagement.  Our independent and yet aligned voices=  are very important components of any Internet governance dialogue, and we= re clearly instrumental in our considerable success throughout WSIS I = and II.
 
Independent high level panel – this has been modified significan= tly since it was first moved at the Montevideo I* CEO meeting (where i= n full transparency, virtually all gathered had significant objec= tions to an All Star high level panel – for all the reasons one would expect in our community).   
 
It is now meant to be only one possible input and has a more Internet = informed panel.    There will be additional inform= ation available shortly.
 
IMPORTANT - NEW!!  Issues Framework: Internet Challenge= s: A framework for tackling the hard political, technical, operational = ;and social problems facing the Internet
 
Finally, I would like to point to a resource ISOC rcently developed in= order to better inform various discussions on Internet Governance Iss= ues. This framework for tackling Internet issues was developed by= Leslie Daigle and myself in advance of ISOC’s opening speech at the IGF.  We pulled it together over the cou= rse of a day and a half, so please help us improve it.
 
The framework is, in part, a response to what I believe are somewhat c= avalier statements being made about Internet governance gaps and so-ca= lled orphan issues which entirely belie the underlying complexity= of the issues, and/or ignore efforts already underway to help address them. We felt we needed to engage the broader co= mmunity in a more thoughtful discussion.  This was well received = in the IGF, and at the recent IETF meeting where it was also feat= ured. 
 
The objective is to categorize possible solution paths for the various= IG challenges we all see.  This is expected to help in subsequen= t discussions of roles or new mechanisms.
 
We are looking for input across many communities and would very much a= ppreciate any comments you may have. Over the next few weeks you = will see more specific requests and opportunities to inform, use, and = further develop this framework. Find out more at:
 
http://www.intern= etsociety.org/internetstrong  
 
and please do start discussions on this “framework/taxonomy̶= 1; on our lists, with members, as well as on other lists. We need broa= d input and review, these are cross-cutting issues and require th= e engagement of many different stakeholders. 
 
Closing:
 
We will post regular updates to our members, and on our website/blogs,= etc.  We look forward to working together to help make the = Internet stronger and we encourage everyone to get engaged in these&nb= sp;discussions – locally, nationally, regionally and, of course internationally.   And, bring your friends and colleag= ues – the more voices the better.
 
Best regards,
 
Lynn St.Amour
 

 

 

--_000_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_-- --_004_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_ Content-Type: text/plain; name="ATT00001.txt" Content-Description: ATT00001.txt Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="ATT00001.txt"; size=188; creation-date="Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:45:51 GMT"; modification-date="Sat, 16 Nov 2013 04:45:51 GMT" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCklzb2MtYWR2 aXNvcnktY291bmNpbCBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCklzb2MtYWR2aXNvcnktY291bmNpbEBlbGlzdHMu aXNvYy5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vZWxpc3RzLmlzb2Mub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vaXNvYy1h ZHZpc29yeS1jb3VuY2lsDQo= --_004_6ad7a4a2f779473b84eb645b0c264c58CO2PR05MB636namprd05pro_-- From sm@resistor.net Mon Nov 25 03:52:22 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: internetgovtech@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9AED1AD8E2 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:52:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gj3ACDmUhDEw for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B93581AD791 for ; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAPBqEYi005263; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:52:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1385380340; bh=WDSyW2qtvp3G8it3rWfXucgjfmQbEMBMC1emWngdKbU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=1sSpzmb4GMQbm0T2xZtoJkAqvHATsbjpxc2QUxBtZTUlITyWoL0OTFFRC4Tr0+6sT 1h8Yg4Izz2rQVmxrMBU/4jyDc11OCuQbIvXB1RYBMPYaPaV6zi5xk3XCG8xds8Urhu ZuomFsSqOtOY32ZHh8oQsnpi204wUQ4P3hm+QiDk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1385380340; i=@resistor.net; bh=WDSyW2qtvp3G8it3rWfXucgjfmQbEMBMC1emWngdKbU=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=wDo/ARcoDThACUgHttSW2GZh07XFKMWXQsQ6fOEH8dEbmmtsmikRCZlKBMxFjMAUo jGtP4mV6iSlHPiJvFCiOd6Jnxo08IY3Oo/KaXG0BZsTgyXASw7n9saJRvDObWr+L4H TvQKMHj3p1PjSSeQI/Vldxt3PEtMYT/92KtBX1So= Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20131125025208.0ceea8b8@resistor.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6 Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 03:49:02 -0800 To: Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA , Grace Githaiga From: SM In-Reply-To: <1385358857.69341.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com > References: <1385358857.69341.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Cc: internetgovtech@iab.org Subject: [Internetgovtech] Debate on the African Union Convention on Cyber Security (AUCC) X-BeenThere: internetgovtech@iab.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Governance and IETF technical work List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:52:22 -0000 Hi Jean Paul, At 21:54 24-11-2013, Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA wrote: >Thank you Grace for sharing those updates about the African Union >Convention on Cyber Security(AUCC) >Just last week ( 21 and 22 November 2013) , the National >Telecommunication Regulatory Authority of Burundi ( I am burundian >based in Burundi) has conducted a sensitisation workshop about the >issue of cybersecurity. The (European) Convention on Cybercrime is different from the (African Union) draft convention on the confidence and security in cyberspace. The former is somewhat about computer-related offences, content-related offences and offences related to infringements of copyright and related rights. As a quick note, it seems that the draft convention tries to cover consumer protection, intellectual property rights, personal data and information systems. It is a bit odd to mix all that with legislation to tackle activities which are legislated as criminal activities. The differences between the convention and this draft convention are that the latter: - tries to solve the spam problem - includes electronic transaction - includes a legal framework for personal data protection The scope of the draft convention is broad. The draft convention does not have any text about lawful interception. That can be used to address the problems the draft convention attempts to solve. The drawback is that it might entail less personal data protection. Regards, -sm