[discuss] Call to 1net community - Shape IGF Best Practices!

Constance Bommelaer bommelaer at isoc.org
Sat Aug 23 10:41:35 UTC 2014

Many thanks for your careful review.
Please visit the IGF's Review Platform where you can post your comments,
and they will be taken into account by the Secretariat:

Best regards,

On 8/22/14 10:57 PM, "S Moonesamy" <sm+1net at elandsys.com> wrote:

>Hi Constance,
>At 04:05 22-08-2014, Constance Bommelaer wrote:
>>2.     Regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications (e.g. "spam")
>Item 59 mentions an industry consortium.  I do not like that anyone
>from a developing country would find it affordable to spend U.S.
>$12,500 to be part of that consortium.
>Item 73 mentions the African Union Convention on Cyberspace Security
>and Protection of Personal Data.  There has been some concerns about
>the draft from people in Africa.
>Item 98 mentions that "Work is ongoing in the IETF community to
>develop recommendations to help deal with the spam situations".  I
>have participated in mail-related discussions.  I am not aware of any
>ongoing work in the IETF community to develop recommendations to deal
>with the spam situations.  The IETF does not have "an active spam
>discussion group that promotes information exchange on the
>topic".  The information provided in that item might mislead people
>from developing countries.
>Item 148 mentions the differences between the developing and the
>developed world.  The mailing list for a group cited in the IGF
>document is at 
>https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/anti-spam/2014/date.html  There
>are only two messages for this year.  One of the messages was a reply
>to a message which was posted in September 2013.  I would not
>consider that group as active.  The problem in the developing world
>is that there are foreign experts selling solutions which are not
>adapted to the local context.
>>5.     Best practices for online child protection
>Item 10 mentions that "In the developing world higher overall levels
>of violence and lower rates of Internet accessibility result in
>different child protection priorities for stakeholders. In
>particular, child protection online has diminished value in the face
>of prevailing offline threats of physical violence, sexual assault,
>slavery, and child soldiery".  This paints a very negative picture of
>the developing world.  Is child soldiery widespread in the developing
>world?  The sexual assault rate for Sweden (used as an example) is
>high compared to the rate for some developing countries.
>A number of issues involving children have been traced back to social
>networking sites.  The IGF document does not mention that at all.
>S. Moonesamy 

More information about the discuss mailing list