Perhaps we might all now move on to actual substance? Even if it iv>is= setting up a transparency project, separate from a connection with me pers= onally. Such a project isn't a bad idea, as long as it is administered in t= he interests of transparency overall and not as a vehicle for silencing peo= ple not for who they are or what they have to say but because their views a= re inconvenient at one time or another.

Regards, Nick

On 24 May 2015, at 14:59, Carlos = A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:=

Parm, all this fuzz just to expel Nick??

--c.a.

sent from a dumbphone

On div>24/05/2015, a= t 09:31, parminder <parmind= er at itforchange.net> wrote:

=20=20 =20=20 =20=20 Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) ,

I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister= /public/homePage.do .

It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on....

This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan.

The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc.

For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria.

Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach.

I look forward to hear responses to this proposal..

parminder
=20=20
______________________________= ______________________________
You received this message as= a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, pan>visit:
     href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits">http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
=
____________________________________________________________
You r= eceived this message as a subscriber on the list:
   &nb= sp;bestbits at lists.bestbits.n= et.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
  &= nbsp; http://l= ists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

= = --Apple-Mail=_EF94B69D-07E7-4941-ABDC-EB5C185B94B1-- --Apple-Mail=_4F029CA2-58D1-4761-A878-F5AEFBA676A8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJVYdUBAAoJEEVwc7dMrV001qML/iogY/sb/Q//xirshRb8RAvY EoX4BnEcn9jZljoLnDdnWprWlMYZtw2ij5F1Sm8hMJI0CHPxaq3T/GBPMl1nQPRk 5m7cjYM4W9S0Ftjaao0f+ErSk+YamCYEYkKKo5DW74nnH+m78yW5bQtX22xaK2EV 26esMi4bSe6j+uO99W0zIWp6yZ7Hi15jFM4Rhaq4kzXcUdUhM+vhr4IJwKE8Jg6N Pbydqnthm3E7zDnLHcSmyKl5yKInIzIv/Fzrl5i6R1302J29gU/y70Gnm1TU7uJT ckbMECCpwZiz9OLAMVGv/MZRYwdsTkENsXc6z+s4FP3lq4mihLfHc7DyAPZvsIin Vy+tROQSpg/P9yPqH8GqqnMRMWlxCuOIjnt5TU7z/SQo1NmL+dqmYEr+MvbBvxFv uw1JUnxSvYeUKljIzP8BZI2mmwFwtXJmofjDYqCQ/Z4Kmp98pC2rIpuPSFe+LGpI 2q3mOoUlYB7GWekNIRMOteSbft0w60fPtxw6aFedHA== =MLX3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_4F029CA2-58D1-4761-A878-F5AEFBA676A8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --Apple-Mail=_4F029CA2-58D1-4761-A878-F5AEFBA676A8-- From avri at acm.org Mon May 25 15:48:00 2015 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 15:48:00 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg. Message-ID: <55637C70.20002@acm.org> (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another list. It was suggested that it be forwarded here too. ) Hi, ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing. After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we started on the Main session plan. A quick explanation on how we got to the list of workshops while I am at it. - the top ranked 60 were automatically in. - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being in. I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not positive about 1 of them. Will need to check notes and final lists to be sure. - for the next 30, it was a balancing process. Based on the various proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer, or developed nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket acceptance of all sessions being good sessions was made the chair) for it to be considered further. We then went through them in a detailed sort of way trying to balance. It took 2 passes through a list of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected. The rest of workshop sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice fora (BPF), and the intersessional work. We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash. ... (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications) Re the intersessional work, This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive one). It was slow to get going. At this point the call is coming out in the next day or so. Basically using the working group (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been modified for BPF, we will first ● Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an iterative process. &c. The call should be out shortly. There was a lunch conversation on the draft. (Latest draft can be found at: ) Re The origin of the main session schedule In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on IGF @ 10 and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots). Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for substantive issues. It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS If the PGA rejects the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back. Re WSIS session: Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage. Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2 weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was a bit successful but mostly not. ITU wanted to organize a multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the members states. So now IGF was being used by those who want a consultation on the future of WSIS. Last stop before NYC. And the largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015. So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe, is willing to come to the IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in Brazil. Re IGF @ 10 Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year, that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of scheduling. Some think it should have more time. Re the remaining 2 main session slots, we were given a list and each given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list. I am not sure I remember the whole list, but it included - net neutrality - internet economy - human rights - IANA stuff - cybersecurity - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another participant on this list has the full list) In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll the community. In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description and we should put them out for discussion. I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of. Happy to answer questions if I can. avri ---- Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU Council was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared support from 3 Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates and reports on ITU activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG IPP. I piggybacked the MAG meeting on the ITU trip. I participated in the ITU Council activities as a member of the US delegation. I participate in the MAG meeting as a first year appointee suggested by civil society coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I do not get support for participating in the MAG. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com From susan at chalmers.associates Mon May 25 16:18:37 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 16:18:37 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg. In-Reply-To: <55637C70.20002@acm.org> References: <55637C70.20002@acm.org> Message-ID: Dear Avri, all, Avri, thanks for this excellent update. Very briefly - on the last point Avri made - I wanted to let everyone know that I am proposing a main session to focus on zero-rating and the various aspects of this issue. The community, through submitted workshop proposals, expressed great interest in the issue. There were no less than eight proposals that either focused mainly on zero-rating or included it as a topic for discussion. The zero-rating question is challenging policymakers the world over, and for good reason: it's a really hard topic! I will propose a main session that includes all sides of the issue, including zero-rated content providers, ISPs who zero-rate, end users from developed and developing countries, competition experts, freedom of expression advocates, and other suggested parties to map out this very important public policy issue, in public at the IGF. We have only 10 days from May 22nd to submit a 250-word proposal - so June 1st as I see it (to be confirmed with the Chair). If you'd like to contribute edits to the proposal, please contact me off list and I will share the Google doc. Warm regards, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another list. It > was suggested that it be forwarded here too. ) > > Hi, > > ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing. > After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we > started on the Main session plan. A quick explanation on how we got to > the list of workshops while I am at it. > > - the top ranked 60 were automatically in. > - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being > in. I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not > positive about 1 of them. Will need to check notes and final lists to > be sure. > - for the next 30, it was a balancing process. Based on the various > proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer, or developed > nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new > topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had > to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket > acceptance of all sessions being good sessions was made the chair) > for it to be considered further. We then went through them in a > detailed sort of way trying to balance. It took 2 passes through a list > of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected. The rest of workshop > sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice > fora (BPF), and the intersessional work. > > We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether > someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash. ... > > (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect > soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications) > > Re the intersessional work, > > This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF > Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working > on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive > one). It was slow to get going. At this point the call is > coming out in the next day or so. Basically using the working group > (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been > modified for BPF, we will first > > ● Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of > “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will > be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an > iterative process. > > &c. > > The call should be out shortly. > There was a lunch conversation on the draft. > (Latest draft can be found at: > < > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org/2015-May/000094.html > >) > > Re The origin of the main session schedule > > In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met > during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on > IGF @ 10 and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots). > Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony > (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for > substantive issues. > > It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly > (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS If the PGA rejects > the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back. > > > Re WSIS session: > > Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage. > Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2 > weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was > a bit successful but mostly not. ITU wanted to organize a > multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the > members states. So now IGF was being used by those who want a > consultation on the future of WSIS. Last stop before NYC. And the > largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015. > So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe, is willing to come to the > IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in Brazil. > > Re IGF @ 10 > > Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year, > that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of > scheduling. Some think it should have more time. > > Re the remaining 2 main session slots, we were given a list and each > given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list. I am not sure I > remember the whole list, but it included > > - net neutrality > - internet economy > - human rights > - IANA stuff > - cybersecurity > - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another > participant on this list has the full list) > > > In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in > the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll > the community. In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG > that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description > and we should put them out for discussion. > > I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a > holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of. > Happy to answer questions if I can. > > avri > > ---- > > Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU Council > was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared support from 3 > Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates and reports on ITU > activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG IPP. I piggybacked the > MAG meeting on the ITU trip. I participated in the ITU Council > activities as a member of the US delegation. I participate in the MAG > meeting as a first year appointee suggested by civil society > coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I do not get support > for participating in the MAG. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue May 26 11:46:38 2015 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 17:46:38 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 review info-sharing session on 28 May at WSIS forum - remote participation available Message-ID: Hi all, This is just to share details on an information-sharing event on the WSIS+10 review process, taking place this Thursday at the WSIS Forum. Remote participation and a recording of the event will be available. The invitation with more information is attached in case of interest. Registration is via the dedicated event page: http://www.giplatform.org/events/way-forward-wsis10-review-process Best wishes, -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7739569514 <%2B44%20%280%297852%20535222> | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS event_final1905.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 634375 bytes Desc: not available URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Tue May 26 15:28:45 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 16:28:45 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] The elephant in the room? In-Reply-To: <5562B2B9.6050403@itforchange.net> References: <5562B2B9.6050403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5564C96D.6070903@riseup.net> Dear parminder and all, after I read the text of Becky, I wanted to know, who is One World Trust. Therefore. That's why I looked around a bit on the site www.oneworldtrust.org. In About Us: "A detailed review of the past links between the One World Trust and the All Party Group, can be found here." Voices in Parliament; a brief study of a successful All-Party Parliamentary Group www.oneworldtrust.org/publications/doc_view/195-appgwg-and-owt-history?tmpl=component&format=raw Dear parminder, never i thought, that there comes a positive answer like from you. You have to read this text. Then you understand, that the interest and intention of this organisation is very different of that of you. I hope that. With "accountability" we have the same situation like with the routing of our data packets. If you create a system, where the necessarity of "Governace" or "Accountability" is a design principle, then the "Civil Society", the people, lost. The perspective of a "One World", a "New World Order", a "Super Government" or any other shit, is a moving of representative systems to a single center. Not important, where. Wall Street, City of London or any. Like in all representative systems, the people have no trust. Because the reality is very different to the representative theater. This make the propaganda to "accountability" necessary. You start tour life in India. Or not? Therefore, you know the lies of the British elites and occupiers. We speak about self organizing, self determination, if we speak about Civil Society. many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina Am 25/05/2015 um 02:27 a.m. schrieb parminder: (in BestBit) > Dear Becky/ All > > Good to see a substantive discussion begin on this important topic. > > Hope the list can sustain such a discussion to come up with a > transparency and accountability framework that is best for the IG civil > society. > > The four principles in the cited document look good to me - > transparency, participation, evaluation, and complaint and response > mechanisms. > > Look forward to a good discussion on this list, and BB's steering > committee's response to the proposal. > > I am also seeking a discussion on the JNC list, and will also request a > formal response from the JNC. > > Best, parminder > > > > On Sunday 24 May 2015 09:14 PM, Becky Lentz wrote: (in BestBit) >> Dear BB and JNC colleagues, >> >> Reading BB list posts over the past two days re the tension/debate about >> accountability feels toxic/uncivil (at least to this reader anyway), >> unless that recurring conversation can actually Œgo somewhere¹ beyond >> periodic disagreements about what is/isn¹t civil society and what >> transparency and representation ought to mean, or doesn't mean, to various >> participants. What is remarkable, imho, is how BB has managed to find ways >> to work together when it is strategically useful to do so despite all of >> the obstacles to collaboration that clearly exist: the elephant in the >> room. Yet, while that doesn¹t seem problematic to some, it does to others >> if they are seeking to change the very values/principles that drive the >> work itself. >> >> For what it¹s worth (knowing that those with longer histories doing this >> kind of work most likely have encountered such tools as well as critiques >> of them), here are some links that might be considered by BB¹s executive >> committee, and for that matter, the JNC¹s leaders, if either is >> potentially interested in taking its own model of collaboration to another >> level in the IG/digital rights field and beyond. In fact, the IG/digital >> rights field could take on actually providing other fields with a model of >> how to navigate these tensions, if addressing Œthe elephant in the room¹ >> were also considered an equally important Œpart of the work¹ alongside the >> very necessary research/advocacy/organizing work already going on. >> >> The tools in this resource uphold four accountability principles. >> Implemented at various key institutional and research processes, they aim >> to improve accountability relations between organisations and their >> stakeholders: http://www.oneworldtrust.org/apro/about and >> http://www.oneworldtrust.org/apro/about/using_the_tools. >> >> This may also be of interest 'Does it matter Who Funds You?¹ >> http://www.oneworldtrust.org/blog/?p=579 >> >> Becky Lentz >> McGill University >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From jmalcolm at eff.org Tue May 26 17:10:37 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 26 May 2015 14:10:37 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5564E14D.9000203@eff.org> On 24/05/2015 11:57 pm, Ian Peter wrote: > Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people > who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of > organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations > (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are > cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably > a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a > register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular > updating to be of any use. I think we need to ensure our major > coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and > large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending > this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations > affiliated with these larger groups. Agreed. I also feel that it's a misplaced priority. If any of us actually had enough influence to being making significant impacts on policy, then the expenditure of time and resources on self-policing ourselves in this fashion might make some sense. But since we have enough difficulty as it is just with being heard, let alone having an impact, it just seems a real misallocation of scarce resources for us to be placing ourselves under the microscope like this, especially since nobody but ourselves is raising the question. Instead of a register, there are already voluntary transparency pledges that one can adopt (eg the INGO Accountability Charter, http://www.ingoaccountabilitycharter.org/). Anything heavier than that is, I feel, difficult to justify. Also, take note of this article (from the left, by the way), criticising efforts to enforce formal accountability standards on civil society organisations: http://hapinternational.org/pool/files/ngos,-civil-soc.pdf -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2014/10/09/key_jmalcolm.txt PGP fingerprint: FF13 C2E9 F9C3 DF54 7C4F EAC1 F675 AAE2 D2AB 2220 OTR fingerprint: 26EE FD85 3740 8228 9460 49A8 536F BCD2 536F A5BD Learn how to encrypt your email with the Email Self Defense guide: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 244 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From nb at bollow.ch Tue May 26 19:10:15 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 01:10:15 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg. In-Reply-To: References: <55637C70.20002@acm.org> Message-ID: <20150527011015.3e81d4bf@swan.bollow.ch> On Mon, 25 May 2015 16:18:37 -0400 Susan Chalmers wrote: > Avri, thanks for this excellent update. +1 Greetings, Norbert > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another > > list. It was suggested that it be forwarded here too. ) > > > > Hi, > > > > ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch > > confusing. After spending a day and half finding our way to a list > > of workshops we started on the Main session plan. A quick > > explanation on how we got to the list of workshops while I am at it. > > > > - the top ranked 60 were automatically in. > > - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being > > in. I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am > > not positive about 1 of them. Will need to check notes and final > > lists to be sure. > > - for the next 30, it was a balancing process. Based on the various > > proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer, or developed > > nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old > > topic : new topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, > > &c. MAG members had to champion a session on the balancing > > perspective ( a blanket acceptance of all sessions being good > > sessions was made the chair) for it to be considered further. We > > then went through them in a detailed sort of way trying to > > balance. It took 2 passes through a list of nominated sessions to > > come to the 100 selected. The rest of workshop sessions are filled > > by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice fora (BPF), > > and the intersessional work. > > > > We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding > > whether someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash. ... > > > > (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but > > expect soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications) > > > > Re the intersessional work, > > > > This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF > > Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others > > working on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been > > a passive one). It was slow to get going. At this point the call > > is coming out in the next day or so. Basically using the working > > group (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has > > been modified for BPF, we will first > > > > ● Launch public call for background contributions on the theme > > of “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. > > Contributions will be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the > > output through an iterative process. > > > > &c. > > > > The call should be out shortly. > > There was a lunch conversation on the draft. > > (Latest draft can be found at: > > < > > http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org/2015-May/000094.html > > >) > > > > Re The origin of the main session schedule > > > > In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met > > during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half > > day on IGF @ 10 and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main > > session slots). Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting > > and closing ceremony (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 > > hemisessions) were left for substantive issues. > > > > It seems we were going to invite the President of the General > > Assembly (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS If > > the PGA rejects the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back. > > > > > > Re WSIS session: > > > > Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation > > stage. Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing > > through the 2 weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming > > into IGF was a bit successful but mostly not. ITU wanted to > > organize a multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not > > allowed to by the members states. So now IGF was being used by > > those who want a consultation on the future of WSIS. Last stop > > before NYC. And the largest most diverse of group of participants > > is to be found in IGF 2015. So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I > > believe, is willing to come to the IGF for consultations, there > > will be a full day of consultations in Brazil. > > > > Re IGF @ 10 > > > > Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this > > year, that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a > > reasonable bit of scheduling. Some think it should have more time. > > > > Re the remaining 2 main session slots, we were given a list and > > each given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list. I am not > > sure I remember the whole list, but it included > > > > - net neutrality > > - internet economy > > - human rights > > - IANA stuff > > - cybersecurity > > - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another > > participant on this list has the full list) > > > > > > In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting > > in the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we > > should poll the community. In the end the chair decided those of > > us in the MAG that championed a particular theme should work on a > > brief description and we should put them out for discussion. > > > > I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a > > holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of. > > Happy to answer questions if I can. > > > > avri > > > > ---- > > > > Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU > > Council was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared > > support from 3 Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates > > and reports on ITU activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG > > IPP. I piggybacked the MAG meeting on the ITU trip. I participated > > in the ITU Council activities as a member of the US delegation. I > > participate in the MAG meeting as a first year appointee suggested > > by civil society coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I > > do not get support for participating in the MAG. > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > http://www.avast.com > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed May 27 13:44:09 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 13:44:09 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mahsa Alimardani Date: Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM Subject: [gvadvocacy] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) Dear All, As part of a new series, Advocacy is starting conversations with technical security and circumvention experts. Our goals is to help the community better understand how these tools work, and how we can use them. The subject on our agenda are the tools associated with the *Tor Project *. Join us tomorrow at 12pm ET/ 6pm CET. The hangout is happening here , and you are all invited to join, and participate through online questions. Here's a bit about the conversation, and Tor: *What exactly is the Tor network? Tor enables citizens to bypass government censorship and allows dissidents to communicate anonymously. Sometimes however, it has been used by criminals for nefarious activities, such as selling drugs or distributing child pornography. The network also facilitates special sites that allow website owners and their users to remain anonymous through “hidden services”. This has become popularly known as the “dark web”.How does it work? The Tor network is a collection of servers located across the world. The network helps users connect to the Internet anonymously by sending traffic between at least three Tor servers before allowing it to reach its destination. This makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to understand where the traffic is coming from and where it is going. Tor “exit nodes” are the final set of servers used in the connection process. This is where a user’s traffic exits the Tor network and connects to the world wide web. These nodes are set up by volunteers, with a few organisations who maintain larger exits, including universities and individual activists.In order to better understand the tool, its uses, and its controversies, Global Voices’ Iran editor Mahsa Alimardani will talk with Iranian Tor developer Nima Fatemi and Tor’s head of communications, activist Kate Krauss.* Warmly, Mahsa -- Mahsa Alimardani | Twitter: maasalan | Amsterdam, Netherlands -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 7 08:00:21 2015 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 14:00:21 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political economy ....] In-Reply-To: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote: >http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/ Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows something trustable to read in that area? When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill? Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to qualify? And where to apply? jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Wed May 27 15:54:28 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:54:28 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?South_Africa_FPB=E2=80=99s_Draft_Online_Regu?= =?UTF-8?Q?lations_Policy_Public_Hearing?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <556620F4.6020606@apc.org> Dear all Attached is an invitation to a public meeting convened by local groups and APC on proposed online content regulation in South Africa. Rigth2Know Campaign has a petition on these draft regulations and you can read more about regulations the on APC.org here and copied below: https://www.apc.org/en/news/apc-opposes-internet-content-regulation-proposed-s The purpose of the regulation is so-called child safety, but the regulations are much broader in scope and actually impossible to comply with. One positive outcome of this has been the mobilisation of local civil society - it has been really fantastic. Right2Know has a petition out, but many others - not only those listed in the invite attached are taking action. Particular credit should go to the SOS coalition which is the local 'Save our public broadcaster' coalition and the Freedom of Expression Institute who have worked with us on organising local meetings. We are pursuing a dual strategy with civil society having a coordinated campaign, as well as making individual submissions on the draft regulation, but we are also writing a joint statement with internet service providers and local and international internet and telecoms companies and small/medium internet content businesses who will all be affected by this. We are also calling on people who work on children's rights to oppose these regulations as we don't believe they will achieve the stated objective of online child safety. Your support would be valued - the Rigth2Know petition is here: https://www.change.org/p/film-and-publications-board-stop-the-internet-censorship Anriette APC joins South African civil society groups in opposing internet content regulation proposed by South Africa's Film and Publication Board If implemented, the Draft Online Regulation Policy proposed by the South African Film and Publication Board (FPB) would, under the guise of child protection, pose serious threats to online freedom of expression. It would involve policing content published on the internet – including blogs, personal websites and Facebook pages. APC joins the many South African civil society and broader communications sector voices that are expressing their concern about the proposed regulations. Under the Draft Online Regulation Policy, the Film and Publication Board would have the power to "refer any self-generated video that is found to contain classifiable elements for classification to its classification committee, instruct the distributor to take down the unclassified content and only reinstate it after having complied with the FPB classification decision." This is tantamount to giving the Film and Publication Board the power to effectively censor any Facebook post, Twitter “tweet”, YouTube video, or any other user-generated internet content created by any South African. Aside from the fact that this power would be open to abuse – for example, for censoring political speech, or censoring content created for the purpose of sex education or promoting the interests of LGBT groups – it would be impossible to ensure compliance with the policy. It would place additional burdens on all internet users and intermediaries (companies and organisations that host internet content), particularly small and medium enterprises. At a sector meeting convened by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), the SOS Coalition, the Right2Know (R2K) Campaign and the Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) on Friday 22 May in Johannesburg, there was consensus that the draft regulation policy must be scrapped. The participating civil society groups, media organisations, library associations and internet and telecommunications industry associations all agreed that the proposed regulations pose a serious threat not just to online freedom of expression and association, but also to local internet-based innovation, content development and job creation. Child safety, one of the primary objectives of the proposed regulations, is very important. However, there are other more effective strategies and mechanisms to ensure the protection of children in the online environment that do not require pre-publication censorship. The internet can be a powerful tool in protecting children from harm. Should the proposed draft regulations be adopted, we would be creating an internet which children cannot fully utilise to protect themselves from harm, both online and offline. The question of values in the draft regulations is particularly problematic. We must be careful that the values used in imposing internet control in children's so-called best interests do not end up fundamentally depriving children of all sorts of rights that should be available to them. Children have, for example, the right to information: this includes information about relationships, sexual orientation, safe sex, sexual abuse, and a whole range of topics involving sex. Content that may be useful to children dealing with sexual orientation, the challenges of puberty, love, longing and abuse could easily become the target of the regulations. Join us in rejecting these regulations by supporting the Right2Know petition at www.r2k.org.za/HandsOffOurInternet! and by submitting your own comments to the FPB. Submissions should be emailed to policy.submissions at fpb.org.za or hand delivered to the FPB head office at ECO Glade 2, 420 Witch Hazel Street, ECO Park, Centurion, 0169 and marked for attention Ms. Tholoana Ncheke. The next public meeting convened by APC, R2K, SOS and FXI will take place on 28 May at Civicus House in Newtown at 13h30. After the meeting, participants will move on to the public consultation convened by the Film and Publication Board: Venue: Turbine Hall Newtown, 65 Ntemi Piliso Street, Johannesburg Date: 28 May 2015 Time: 17h00-19h00 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: R2K Invite - FPB?s Draft Online Regulations Policy Hearing.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 47238 bytes Desc: not available URL: From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Wed May 27 21:17:13 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 22:17:13 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> Dear Carolina "... This makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to understand where the traffic is coming from and where it is going..." This is not true. Its a illusion. We don't have control about our physical networks. But all this networks are connected in the IXP's (Internet Exchange Points) and give the access to the data to the state institutions. And this state institutions work in cooperation. With a simple time based correlation you can see the traffic outside of the TOR network. The way from the client to the network and from the network to the server and reverse. Then you know, who communicate and with what. Nearly 80% of all this "anonymisation" are open today. many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina Am 27/05/2015 um 14:44 schrieb Carolina Rossini: > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Mahsa Alimardani > Date: Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM > Subject: [gvadvocacy] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with > Tor (part of a new Advox series) > > Dear All, > > As part of a new series, Advocacy is starting conversations with technical > security and circumvention experts. Our goals is to help the community > better understand how these tools work, and how we can use them. The > subject on our agenda are the tools associated with the *Tor Project > *. > > Join us tomorrow at 12pm ET/ 6pm CET. The hangout is happening here > , and you are > all invited to join, and participate through online questions. > > Here's a bit about the conversation, and Tor: > > *What exactly is the Tor network? Tor enables citizens to bypass government > censorship and allows dissidents to communicate anonymously. Sometimes > however, it has been used by criminals for nefarious activities, such as > selling drugs or distributing child pornography. The network also > facilitates special sites that allow website owners and their users to > remain anonymous through “hidden services”. This has become popularly known > as the “dark web”.How does it work? The Tor network is a collection of > servers located across the world. The network helps users connect to the > Internet anonymously by sending traffic between at least three Tor servers > before allowing it to reach its destination. This makes it nearly > impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to understand where the > traffic is coming from and where it is going. Tor “exit nodes” are the > final set of servers used in the connection process. This is where a user’s > traffic exits the Tor network and connects to the world wide web. These > nodes are set up by volunteers, with a few organisations who maintain > larger exits, including universities and individual activists.In order to > better understand the tool, its uses, and its controversies, Global Voices’ > Iran editor Mahsa Alimardani will talk with Iranian Tor developer Nima > Fatemi and Tor’s head of communications, activist Kate Krauss.* > > Warmly, > Mahsa From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu May 28 06:25:16 2015 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:25:16 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] WSIS+10 review info-sharing session on 28 May at WSIS forum - remote participation available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, The link for online participation for the info-sharing event on the WSIS+10 review process at the WSIS forum today is below: https://meetings.webex.com/collabs/#/meetings/detail?uuid=M0COY7LBN637BMCGEM0HY6RJKB-IQO5&rnd=192776.12721 Best, Sheetal. On 26 May 2015 at 17:46, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Hi all, > > This is just to share details on an information-sharing event on the > WSIS+10 review process, taking place this Thursday at the WSIS Forum. > > Remote participation and a recording of the event will be available. The > invitation with more information is attached in case of interest. > > Registration is via the dedicated event page: > http://www.giplatform.org/events/way-forward-wsis10-review-process > > Best wishes, > -- > *Sheetal Kumar* > Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7739569514 > <%2B44%20%280%297852%20535222> | > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Programme Manager | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0337 | M: +44 (0)7739569514 <%2B44%20%280%297852%20535222> | -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anja at internetdemocracy.in Thu May 28 06:32:54 2015 From: anja at internetdemocracy.in (Anja Kovacs) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 16:02:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: <20150524125901.0f0b8b23@quill> References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> <5E424DDC-D3B6-494F-8652-A99C25B8346A@difference.com.au> <555B3194.6020509@itforchange.net> <555B6A0A.7000504@eff.org> <555B7D35.2030303@apc.org> <55602D1A.3070009@itforchange.net> <9941F756-12FA-4722-AE25-D40C8EB8E7B1@derechosdigitales.org> <080EAD77-A6DB-4916-BFA3-665A2B2C6385@consensus.pro> <5560B7BC.3020507@itforchange.net> <14d81e52e30.27d1.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> <5560C4A1.6010306@itforchange.net> <14d8210ca40.2758.9387b8a9f30986f905fcc4cfa238b71f@consensus.pro> <55617692.20204@itforchange.net> <20150524125901.0f0b8b23@quill> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, My apologies for coming to this thread late, as well as for completely having missed your earlier message regarding the APrIGF call for workshops that I posted. I'm still struggling to find that message on my phone right now, but let me say that I, like others, always presumed that the reference to 'multistakeholder perspective' in that call refers to the structure of the workshop, not the content. That is in any case the assumption on which I have worked (though I was in no way involved in drafting this call). Regards, Anja On May 24, 2015 4:29 PM, "Norbert Bollow" wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2015 12:28:26 +0530 > parminder wrote: > > > > Life's too short. > > > > > Not to be upfront, transparent and honest! That is what civil society > > has to be about. > > Certainly life is too short to waste it on building civil society > bodies only to discover afterwards that there was undisclosed, undue > influence from representatives of particular interests. > > I wholeheartedly agree with Parminder here. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 28 07:39:54 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:09:54 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> Thanks Ian Responding to the two issues you raise. On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Two issues in response to your suggestion. > > Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five > people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS > organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent > chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society > response and conduit when it comes to making civil society > appointments to outside organisations. It has no staff, no funding, > not even a formal charter. In order to address some of the issues it > faces I have suggested from time to time that the membership be > expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who are > not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. The last > time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded negative > responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of position on > this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the right > organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC? I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there was a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and directed initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate avenues of recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it, but IGC would do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind offer, I will try and raise resources for one person devoting her half/ quarter time, who can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral image, for this purpose. More resources are needed initially for setting it up, but once set up it wont require much. I still do not know from where id seek resources but I am confident that with so much funds coming into the IG space someone somewhere would give a few thousand dollars for overall transparency and accountability in the sector. That should address and settle the resources argument in terms of my proposal. > > Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people > who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of > organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations > (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are > cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably > a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a > register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular > updating to be of any use. I think we need to ensure our major > coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and > large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending > this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations > affiliated with these larger groups. Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are focussed on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious reasons that the former have a greater role and impact. One may not need such processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any nominations or appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in which case anyone would agree that some basic declarations should in any case be necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone are what my proposed initiative asks for. > > Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that > something be done in this area, but I think we need to refine any > such idea somewhat, Please give suggestions. > and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency > in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures > might also assist this. And for this as well. Thanks again. parminder > > Ian Peter > > *From:* parminder > *Sent:* Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM > *To:* Ian Peter ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; > BestBitsList ; > mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing > space for the APC Community. > *Subject:* [governance] Civil society transparency > > Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society > Coordination Group (CSCG) , > > I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, > somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see > http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . > > It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one > for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil > society which should set the highest example of transparency and > accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on > objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its > funding, partners, and so on.... > > This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil > society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would > be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is > no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for > partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, > transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. > > The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ > org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how > its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with > their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any > means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. > > For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an > organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such > organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of > criteria. > > Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the > NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also > recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the > OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we > begin practising what we preach. > > I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. > > parminder > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jmalcolm at eff.org Thu May 28 21:41:20 2015 From: jmalcolm at eff.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> Replying just to the IGC list in respect of the suggestion that the IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence. I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout from JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits lists by about their funding and demanding they take particular accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. -- Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: > On May 28, 2015, at 4:39 AM, parminder wrote: > > Thanks Ian > > Responding to the two issues you raise. > >> On Monday 25 May 2015 12:27 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Two issues in response to your suggestion. >> >> Firstly, the suggestion that CSCG do this. CSCG consists of five people who are pretty busy co-ordinating coalitions of CS organisations (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) and myself as an independent chair. The role of CSCG is to ensure a co-ordinated civil society response and conduit when it comes to making civil society appointments to outside organisations. It has no staff, no funding, not even a formal charter. In order to address some of the issues it faces I have suggested from time to time that the membership be expanded to include say 3 more respected civil society people who are not formal representatives of coalitions of CS organisations. The last time I suggested this it was met with some strongly worded negative responses from JNC and I have not heard of any change of position on this. So for these reasons I don’t think CSCG is the right organisation to take on this task. Perhaps IGC? > > I suggested CSCG bec it has reps from major CS networks and so there was a common ownership over what should be a commonly owned and directed initiative so that there is scope of bias, and appropriate avenues of recourse exist. I still think CSCG the right body for it, but IGC would do as well. As for resources, let me make this blind offer, I will try and raise resources for one person devoting her half/ quarter time, who can be housed in a reputed org with a neutral image, for this purpose. More resources are needed initially for setting it up, but once set up it wont require much. I still do not know from where id seek resources but I am confident that with so much funds coming into the IG space someone somewhere would give a few thousand dollars for overall transparency and accountability in the sector. That should address and settle the resources argument in terms of my proposal. > >> >> Secondly, I wonder how it would work in CS which has so many people who are basically acting as individuals rather than representatives of organisations. Many if not most of us also have non CS affiliations (eg membership of ISOC, business or governmental employees if we are cs volunteers, academic postings etc) so the “pure” CS rep is probably a bit hard to find. I am not sure what we would gain by having a register of all our multiple affiliations which would need regular updating to be of any use. I think we need to ensure our major coalitions (BB, JNC, IGC, APC, NCSG) act transparently, and by and large I think they do. But I am not sure of the value of extending this to what is probably tens of thousands of members or organisations affiliated with these larger groups. > > Almost all CS transparency and accountability initiatives are focussed on organisations and not individuals, bec of the obvious reasons that the former have a greater role and impact. One may not need such processes for individuals, other than perhaps when any nominations or appointments are being on behalf of civil society , in which case anyone would agree that some basic declarations should in any case be necessary, and such simple and basic decelerations alone are what my proposed initiative asks for. > >> >> Over to others to discuss. I am not opposed to the suggestion that something be done in this area, but I think we need to refine any such idea somewhat, > > Please give suggestions. > >> and if the aim is somehow to enhance CS credibility and transparency in this space, perhaps we should also discuss what other measures might also assist this. > > And for this as well. > > Thanks again. parminder >> >> Ian Peter >> >> From: parminder >> Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:31 PM >> To: Ian Peter ; governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; BestBitsList ; mailto:forum at justnetcoalition.org ; A general information sharing space for the APC Community. >> Subject: [governance] Civil society transparency >> >> Ian, and reps of civil society networks on the Civil Society Coordination Group (CSCG) , >> >> I propose that CSCG sets up a civil society transparency project, somewhat on the lines of the EU Transparency Register, pl see http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . >> >> It should in fact go beyond the EU initiative which is a general one for all lobbying groups, whereas we here are concerned with civil society which should set the highest example of transparency and accountability. The 'register' can have self filled information on objectives of an organisation, principles followed by it, if any, its funding, partners, and so on.... >> >> This is at present just my proposal, but I hope one or more civil society networks in the IG space can own it and push it... CSCG would be well placed to run this project as a neutral space so that there is no accusation of bias that any such initiative is being employed for partisan purposes. In any case, a simple initiative for openness, transparency and accountability can hardly be partisan. >> >> The register can have optional higher level features whereby a group/ org can declare its means of public accountability, whether and how its internal governance is done, how matters can be taken by with their oversight bodies, like board etc, and whether they have any means whereby they respond to public question on their work, etc. >> >> For such genuine cases where such transparency can harm an organisations work, or security, such organisations, and only such organisations, can be exempted employing a clear process and set of criteria. >> >> Remember, both the UN report on improvements to the IGF and the NetMundial Statement highlight the issue of transparency. I also recently read in these lists how we should make bridges with the OpenGov movement which is almost wholly about this one thing. Time we begin practising what we preach. >> >> I look forward to hear responses to this proposal.. >> >> parminder >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> To be removed from the list, visit: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >> >> For all other list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave at difference.com.au Fri May 29 04:37:31 2015 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 16:37:31 +0800 Subject: [bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg. In-Reply-To: References: <55637C70.20002@acm.org> Message-ID: I would recommend Pranesh Prakash as a civil society member with interesting things to say on the zero rating topic. David > On 26 May 2015, at 4:18 am, Susan Chalmers wrote: > > Dear Avri, all, > > Avri, thanks for this excellent update. > > Very briefly - on the last point Avri made - I wanted to let everyone know that I am proposing a main session to focus on zero-rating and the various aspects of this issue. The community, through submitted workshop proposals, expressed great interest in the issue. There were no less than eight proposals that either focused mainly on zero-rating or included it as a topic for discussion. The zero-rating question is challenging policymakers the world over, and for good reason: it's a really hard topic! > > I will propose a main session that includes all sides of the issue, including zero-rated content providers, ISPs who zero-rate, end users from developed and developing countries, competition experts, freedom of expression advocates, and other suggested parties to map out this very important public policy issue, in public at the IGF. > > We have only 10 days from May 22nd to submit a 250-word proposal - so June 1st as I see it (to be confirmed with the Chair). If you'd like to contribute edits to the proposal, please contact me off list and I will share the Google doc. > > Warm regards, > Susan > > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > CHALMERS & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another list. It > was suggested that it be forwarded here too. ) > > Hi, > > ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing. > After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we > started on the Main session plan. A quick explanation on how we got to > the list of workshops while I am at it. > > - the top ranked 60 were automatically in. > - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being > in. I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not > positive about 1 of them. Will need to check notes and final lists to > be sure. > - for the next 30, it was a balancing process. Based on the various > proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer, or developed > nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new > topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had > to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket > acceptance of all sessions being good sessions was made the chair) > for it to be considered further. We then went through them in a > detailed sort of way trying to balance. It took 2 passes through a list > of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected. The rest of workshop > sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice > fora (BPF), and the intersessional work. > > We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether > someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash. ... > > (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect > soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications) > > Re the intersessional work, > > This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF > Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working > on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive > one). It was slow to get going. At this point the call is > coming out in the next day or so. Basically using the working group > (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been > modified for BPF, we will first > > ● Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of > “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will > be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an > iterative process. > > &c. > > The call should be out shortly. > There was a lunch conversation on the draft. > (Latest draft can be found at: > >) > > Re The origin of the main session schedule > > In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met > during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on > IGF @ 10 and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots). > Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony > (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for > substantive issues. > > It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly > (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS If the PGA rejects > the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back. > > > Re WSIS session: > > Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage. > Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2 > weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was > a bit successful but mostly not. ITU wanted to organize a > multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the > members states. So now IGF was being used by those who want a > consultation on the future of WSIS. Last stop before NYC. And the > largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015. > So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe, is willing to come to the > IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in Brazil. > > Re IGF @ 10 > > Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year, > that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of > scheduling. Some think it should have more time. > > Re the remaining 2 main session slots, we were given a list and each > given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list. I am not sure I > remember the whole list, but it included > > - net neutrality > - internet economy > - human rights > - IANA stuff > - cybersecurity > - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another > participant on this list has the full list) > > > In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in > the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll > the community. In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG > that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description > and we should put them out for discussion. > > I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a > holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of. > Happy to answer questions if I can. > > avri > > ---- > > Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU Council > was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared support from 3 > Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates and reports on ITU > activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG IPP. I piggybacked the > MAG meeting on the ITU trip. I participated in the ITU Council > activities as a member of the US delegation. I participate in the MAG > meeting as a first year appointee suggested by civil society > coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I do not get support > for participating in the MAG. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 455 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From susan at chalmers.associates Fri May 29 09:59:38 2015 From: susan at chalmers.associates (Susan Chalmers) Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 09:59:38 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Update on latest IGF MAG mtg. In-Reply-To: References: <55637C70.20002@acm.org>

Message-ID: Dear David, Many thanks for this. I am familiar with Pranesh's excellent work. First, however, we have to get past an initial hurdle, which is having the basic session proposal accepted by the MAG, by consensus. I will provide an update to this list once we know the outcome. Sincerely, Susan Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES http://chalmers.associates On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:37 AM, David Cake wrote: > I would recommend Pranesh Prakash as a civil society member with > interesting things to say on the zero rating topic. > > David > > On 26 May 2015, at 4:18 am, Susan Chalmers > wrote: > > Dear Avri, all, > > Avri, thanks for this excellent update. > > Very briefly - on the last point Avri made - I wanted to let everyone know > that I am proposing a main session to focus on zero-rating and the various > aspects of this issue. The community, through submitted workshop proposals, > expressed great interest in the issue. There were no less than eight > proposals that either focused mainly on zero-rating or included it as a > topic for discussion. The zero-rating question is challenging policymakers > the world over, and for good reason: it's a really hard topic! > > I will propose a main session that includes all sides of the issue, > including zero-rated content providers, ISPs who zero-rate, end users from > developed and developing countries, competition experts, freedom of > expression advocates, and other suggested parties to map out this very > important public policy issue, in public at the IGF. > > We have only 10 days from May 22nd to submit a 250-word proposal - so June > 1st as I see it (to be confirmed with the Chair). If you'd like to > contribute edits to the proposal, please contact me off list and I will > share the Google doc. > > Warm regards, > Susan > > > > Susan Chalmers > susan at chalmers.associates > > *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES > http://chalmers.associates > > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> (The following is an edited copy of a message I sent to another list. It >> was suggested that it be forwarded here too. ) >> >> Hi, >> >> ... the issue with main sessions is still open and a touch confusing. >> After spending a day and half finding our way to a list of workshops we >> started on the Main session plan. A quick explanation on how we got to >> the list of workshops while I am at it. >> >> - the top ranked 60 were automatically in. >> - the next 10 were in unless someone had a reason for them not being >> in. I think in the end they may have all ended up in, though I am not >> positive about 1 of them. Will need to check notes and final lists to >> be sure. >> - for the next 30, it was a balancing process. Based on the various >> proportions, e.g. previous organizer : new organizer, or developed >> nation : developing, same old panel : other format, same old topic : new >> topic, stakeholder group : other stakeholder groups, &c. MAG members had >> to champion a session on the balancing perspective ( a blanket >> acceptance of all sessions being good sessions was made the chair) >> for it to be considered further. We then went through them in a >> detailed sort of way trying to balance. It took 2 passes through a list >> of nominated sessions to come to the 100 selected. The rest of workshop >> sessions are filled by open fora, dynamic coalitions (DC), best practice >> fora (BPF), and the intersessional work. >> >> We also spent a fair amount of time of micromanaging, deciding whether >> someone needed 90 minutes, 60 minutes or a flash. ... >> >> (re, when the final list will be posted, don't know for sure but expect >> soon. Secretariat has a lot of work to do in notifications) >> >> Re the intersessional work, >> >> This is being worked in response to CSTD recommendations on IGF >> Improvements, there is a an open team of MAG members and others working >> on this effort (I am one of the coordinators, but have been a passive >> one). It was slow to get going. At this point the call is >> coming out in the next day or so. Basically using the working group >> (WG) concept that is borrowed from many institutions and has been >> modified for BPF, we will first >> >> ● Launch public call for background contributions on the theme of >> “/Policy Options for Connecting the Next Billion/”. Contributions will >> be gathered and ultimately incorporated in the output through an >> iterative process. >> >> &c. >> >> The call should be out shortly. >> There was a lunch conversation on the draft. >> (Latest draft can be found at: >> < >> http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/intersessional_2015_intgovforum.org/2015-May/000094.html >> >) >> >> Re The origin of the main session schedule >> >> In terms of main sessions, a self selected ad-hoc subgroup had met >> during lunch on day 2 and set up a schedule that includes a half day on >> IGF @ 10 and a full day dedicated to WSIS+10 (3 main session slots). >> Therefore , when considering pre-session, starting and closing ceremony >> (3 full session) left, 2 full sessions (4 hemisessions) were left for >> substantive issues. >> >> It seems we were going to invite the President of the General Assembly >> (PGA) and needed to dedicate that much time to WSIS If the PGA rejects >> the idea, then we will get 1 thematic session back. >> >> >> Re WSIS session: >> >> Part of what is playing out was act 3 in the WSIS Continuation stage. >> Starting in CSTD (which I did not attend), continuing through the 2 >> weeks of ITU Council (which I did attend) and coming into IGF was >> a bit successful but mostly not. ITU wanted to organize a >> multistakeholder consultation on WSIS but was not allowed to by the >> members states. So now IGF was being used by those who want a >> consultation on the future of WSIS. Last stop before NYC. And the >> largest most diverse of group of participants is to be found in IGF 2015. >> So if the PGA, it will be Denmark I believe, is willing to come to the >> IGF for consultations, there will be a full day of consultations in >> Brazil. >> >> Re IGF @ 10 >> >> Since the UNGA is going to decide on IGF's continuing fate this year, >> that seemed necessary to most all of us thought it a reasonable bit of >> scheduling. Some think it should have more time. >> >> Re the remaining 2 main session slots, we were given a list and each >> given a chance to argue to 2 topics on the list. I am not sure I >> remember the whole list, but it included >> >> - net neutrality >> - internet economy >> - human rights >> - IANA stuff >> - cybersecurity >> - ... (couple more i did not write them down, perhaps another >> participant on this list has the full list) >> >> >> In any case there was a supported recommendation that those sitting in >> the room should not be deciding this on our own and that we should poll >> the community. In the end the chair decided those of us in the MAG >> that championed a particular theme should work on a brief description >> and we should put them out for discussion. >> >> I may think of more, but this is it for pre-breakfast mind-dump on a >> holiday morning of a day when I have a paper to finish a draft of. >> Happy to answer questions if I can. >> >> avri >> >> ---- >> >> Funding disclosure specifically for BB: This trip to GVA for ITU Council >> was paid for by a combination of my air miles and shared support from 3 >> Civil Society advocacy groups to whom I give updates and reports on ITU >> activities concerning ITU CWG WSIS and ITU CWG IPP. I piggybacked the >> MAG meeting on the ITU trip. I participated in the ITU Council >> activities as a member of the US delegation. I participate in the MAG >> meeting as a first year appointee suggested by civil society >> coordination group. My ITU time is not paid for. I do not get support >> for participating in the MAG. >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> http://www.avast.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nashton at consensus.pro Sat May 30 02:24:49 2015 From: nashton at consensus.pro (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:24:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Copyright and streaming services, the ugly truth Message-ID: Dear all, as I know a number of you are interested in copyright policy, I thought I would highlight a story on the economics of streaming services and major labels. The contract between Sony and Spotify was leaked and The Verge has done an excellent job of making it understandable for people who don’t follow the Byzantine process in music which serves admirably to protect the guilty whilst harming the innocent (to put it bluntly). You can find it here: http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/19/8621581/sony-music-spotify-contract Few stories in the tech news manage to get this sort of thing right but they really have. My personal hope is that this will help to change the debate from complaints about the services to one where the focus is on the behaviour of the middlemen - record companies and music publishers. From my direct personal experience/long suffering, I can tell you that it is the latter that are the real problem, and artists are doing themselves a huge disservice by focussing on the services instead. Regards, Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 670 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lists at digitaldissidents.org Sat May 30 10:14:49 2015 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 16:14:49 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> References: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> Message-ID: <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Willi, To do this kind of timing attack you will need to have the resources to monitor large parts of the Internet and/or have control of many Tor relays and exit nodes. Even in the NSA slides leaked by Snowden is was confirmed the NSA did not have the ability to deanonymise Tor traffic. Would be great to see the research papers where you are basing your statements on. As you know the traffic between the different hops on the Tor network are encrypted, and the different hops are unknown. So I don't know how you think that having access to an IXP would somehow break encryption (between the hops) or the anonymity in general. Best, Niels On 05/28/2015 03:17 AM, willi uebelherr wrote: > > Dear Carolina > > "... This makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the > Internet to understand where the traffic is coming from and where > it is going..." > > This is not true. Its a illusion. We don't have control about our > physical networks. But all this networks are connected in the > IXP's (Internet Exchange Points) and give the access to the data to > the state institutions. And this state institutions work in > cooperation. > > With a simple time based correlation you can see the traffic > outside of the TOR network. The way from the client to the network > and from the network to the server and reverse. Then you know, who > communicate and with what. > > Nearly 80% of all this "anonymisation" are open today. > > many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina > > > Am 27/05/2015 um 14:44 schrieb Carolina Rossini: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mahsa Alimardani >> Date: Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM Subject: [gvadvocacy] >> Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of >> a new Advox series) >> >> Dear All, >> >> As part of a new series, Advocacy is starting conversations with >> technical security and circumvention experts. Our goals is to >> help the community better understand how these tools work, and >> how we can use them. The subject on our agenda are the tools >> associated with the *Tor Project *. >> >> Join us tomorrow at 12pm ET/ 6pm CET. The hangout is happening >> here >> , and >> you are all invited to join, and participate through online >> questions. >> >> Here's a bit about the conversation, and Tor: >> >> *What exactly is the Tor network? Tor enables citizens to bypass >> government censorship and allows dissidents to communicate >> anonymously. Sometimes however, it has been used by criminals for >> nefarious activities, such as selling drugs or distributing child >> pornography. The network also facilitates special sites that >> allow website owners and their users to remain anonymous through >> “hidden services”. This has become popularly known as the “dark >> web”.How does it work? The Tor network is a collection of servers >> located across the world. The network helps users connect to the >> Internet anonymously by sending traffic between at least three >> Tor servers before allowing it to reach its destination. This >> makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to >> understand where the traffic is coming from and where it is >> going. Tor “exit nodes” are the final set of servers used in the >> connection process. This is where a user’s traffic exits the Tor >> network and connects to the world wide web. These nodes are set >> up by volunteers, with a few organisations who maintain larger >> exits, including universities and individual activists.In order >> to better understand the tool, its uses, and its controversies, >> Global Voices’ Iran editor Mahsa Alimardani will talk with >> Iranian Tor developer Nima Fatemi and Tor’s head of >> communications, activist Kate Krauss.* >> >> Warmly, Mahsa > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVacXZAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBDMH/iBM4M3UFmbutft0rInh21lM wp+OOElEgMhZyd9Ai+uaxhYuUvxN8B/LS1xU3KKTo7RllQ0GFYS9mpybnDv3hf6p gHwHqVWw87noNnPlMSSd9h7lr5sPvK3Dp0HeEJU82m2l1TZh/UH8QyuF9Ywr4og/ rmfiEDXJ2nGTeWWF++dT+bxi43l9X9C0X8ZkOB417txYpZlyLVLOMH0ChUAA655Y /9znfGw8B3kVeKM2hq8AEU6FPCfrnlIyVfaDFoxbfpesKkEJHx5r5Mt2lbJhaKvJ vPX+owIal/UJcPqcv/TnY4y4/8U2AVLh3cwaff43OOMBjS32Z27R9VyWVmy8+UI= =ixIr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From parminder at itforchange.net Thu May 7 10:42:43 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 20:12:43 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political economy ....] In-Reply-To: References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net> On Thursday 07 May 2015 05:30 PM, Jefsey wrote: > At 11:46 07/05/2015, parminder wrote: >> http://boundary2.org/2015/04/29/dissecting-the-internet-freedom-agenda/ > > Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first in in dissecting > the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does someone knows > something trustable to read in that area? > > When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society > members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string wallets > and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill? > > Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be to > qualify? And where to apply? Yes, JFC, this is perhaps the single most important issue - to try to understand and perhaps apply corrective pressures on the current IG related civil society (CS) configuration... But unfortunately the involved CS is unable to build any kind of consensus on this all important issue, or to act on it... It is so surprising that a sector whose raison d'etre is to seek accountability from all those who are powerful itself refuses to to be held accountable. In fact, raising this issue in these civil society groups has attracted most vile responses, as for instance Norbert faced a year or two back. My organisation has proposed to some key players to set up a online register of some kind for CS players in the IG space, on the lines of EU Transparency Register http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do . But our discussions went nowhere. Once, again, I appeal to key CS groups involved here to join efforts to develop such an online register. If it is needed for corporate lobbyists, it is today needed much more for CS groups as well. /*My organisation is happy to take a lead to be the initial point of contact for those interested to develop such an initiative. Once there is an initial mass of groups/ individuals they can together choose an appropriate governance structure for the initiative. */ So many IG documents to day speak of transparency among stakeholder groups, but little is done in practice (including the CSTD working group on IGF improvement, and the much celebrated Net Mundial document). CS must of course take the lead, and the conscience keeper of governance processes. parminder > > jfc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From azrak_khan at hotmail.com Sat May 30 10:49:35 2015 From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (azrak_khan at hotmail.com) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 14:49:35 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> References: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Dear Niels, This was a very interesting topic of discussion at one of our capacity building events. Law enforcement agencies are trying very hard to decode or deanonymoise ToR in Pakistan as they believe most of the violent online political extremism is happening behind it. How they have reached the conclusion remains a mystery. The growing school of thought with in LEAs circle in Pakistan regarding deanonymising ToR is focused on establishing many exit/relay nodes and try to capture traffic from it and than hope to decode it. I believe thats what NSA was also trying to do but on a bigger scale without any success or atleast thats what we know if it. Best, Arzak Sent by Outlook for Android _____________________________ From:Niels ten Oever Subject:Re: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) To:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Willi, To do this kind of timing attack you will need to have the resources to monitor large parts of the Internet and/or have control of many Tor relays and exit nodes. Even in the NSA slides leaked by Snowden is was confirmed the NSA did not have the ability to deanonymise Tor traffic. Would be great to see the research papers where you are basing your statements on. As you know the traffic between the different hops on the Tor network are encrypted, and the different hops are unknown. So I don't know how you think that having access to an IXP would somehow break encryption (between the hops) or the anonymity in general. Best, Niels On 05/28/2015 03:17 AM, willi uebelherr wrote: > > Dear Carolina > > "... This makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the > Internet to understand where the traffic is coming from and where > it is going..." > > This is not true. Its a illusion. We don't have control about our > physical networks. But all this networks are connected in the > IXP's (Internet Exchange Points) and give the access to the data to > the state institutions. And this state institutions work in > cooperation. > > With a simple time based correlation you can see the traffic > outside of the TOR network. The way from the client to the network > and from the network to the server and reverse. Then you know, who > communicate and with what. > > Nearly 80% of all this "anonymisation" are open today. > > many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina > > > Am 27/05/2015 um 14:44 schrieb Carolina Rossini: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mahsa Alimardani >> Date: Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM Subject: [gvadvocacy] >> Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of >> a new Advox series) >> >> Dear All, >> >> As part of a new series, Advocacy is starting conversations with >> technical security and circumvention experts. Our goals is to >> help the community better understand how these tools work, and >> how we can use them. The subject on our agenda are the tools >> associated with the *Tor Project < https://www.torproject.org/>*. >> >> Join us tomorrow at 12pm ET/ 6pm CET. The hangout is happening >> here >> < https://plus.google.com/events/cnqsccekj03r95a4ehialintv04>, and >> you are all invited to join, and participate through online >> questions. >> >> Here's a bit about the conversation, and Tor: >> >> *What exactly is the Tor network? Tor enables citizens to bypass >> government censorship and allows dissidents to communicate >> anonymously. Sometimes however, it has been used by criminals for >> nefarious activities, such as selling drugs or distributing child >> pornography. The network also facilitates special sites that >> allow website owners and their users to remain anonymous through >> “hidden services”. This has become popularly known as the “dark >> web”.How does it work? The Tor network is a collection of servers >> located across the world. The network helps users connect to the >> Internet anonymously by sending traffic between at least three >> Tor servers before allowing it to reach its destination. This >> makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to >> understand where the traffic is coming from and where it is >> going. Tor “exit nodes” are the final set of servers used in the >> connection process. This is where a user’s traffic exits the Tor >> network and connects to the world wide web. These nodes are set >> up by volunteers, with a few organisations who maintain larger >> exits, including universities and individual activists.In order >> to better understand the tool, its uses, and its controversies, >> Global Voices’ Iran editor Mahsa Alimardani will talk with >> Iranian Tor developer Nima Fatemi and Tor’s head of >> communications, activist Kate Krauss.* >> >> Warmly, Mahsa > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your > settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVacXZAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpBDMH/iBM4M3UFmbutft0rInh21lM wp+OOElEgMhZyd9Ai+uaxhYuUvxN8B/LS1xU3KKTo7RllQ0GFYS9mpybnDv3hf6p gHwHqVWw87noNnPlMSSd9h7lr5sPvK3Dp0HeEJU82m2l1TZh/UH8QyuF9Ywr4og/ rmfiEDXJ2nGTeWWF++dT+bxi43l9X9C0X8ZkOB417txYpZlyLVLOMH0ChUAA655Y /9znfGw8B3kVeKM2hq8AEU6FPCfrnlIyVfaDFoxbfpesKkEJHx5r5Mt2lbJhaKvJ vPX+owIal/UJcPqcv/TnY4y4/8U2AVLh3cwaff43OOMBjS32Z27R9VyWVmy8+UI= =ixIr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From willi.uebelherr at riseup.net Sat May 30 14:20:27 2015 From: willi.uebelherr at riseup.net (willi uebelherr) Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 15:20:27 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> References: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <5569FF6B.2090808@riseup.net> Dear Azrak Khan, many thanks for your participation. Maybe, from your base of experience, you can create a bigger diversity. Dear Niels, search in the internet. You will find a big pool of information. Use one person as a distribution point: Bruce Schneier from EFF. Maybe, he is also on this list and can make it more clearly. Or Jeremy Malcom can help us. Use the texts from Robert Graham. All this texts are very good startpoints to get a view around and about the problematic. We should try to go the reality. many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina Am 30/05/2015 um 11:14 schrieb Niels ten Oever: > Dear Willi, > > To do this kind of timing attack you will need to have the resources > to monitor large parts of the Internet and/or have control of many Tor > relays and exit nodes. > > Even in the NSA slides leaked by Snowden is was confirmed the NSA did > not have the ability to deanonymise Tor traffic. > > Would be great to see the research papers where you are basing your > statements on. > > As you know the traffic between the different hops on the Tor network > are encrypted, and the different hops are unknown. So I don't know how > you think that having access to an IXP would somehow break encryption > (between the hops) or the anonymity in general. > > Best, > Niels From nb at bollow.ch Sun May 31 03:00:29 2015 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 09:00:29 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Civil society transparency In-Reply-To: <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> References: <55617E51.5010901@itforchange.net> <5566FE8A.9010209@itforchange.net> <685563FB-947F-4110-8B81-3872514B494C@eff.org> Message-ID: <20150531090029.5bd0ce96@quill> On Thu, 28 May 2015 18:41:20 -0700 Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Replying just to the IGC list As a matter of fact, Jeremy's posting was broadcast to many civil society mailing lists. > in respect of the suggestion that the > IGC could host this McCarthy Committee on civil society funding and > transparency, I doubt that there is any consensus that it should do > this, and the IGC cannot act in its absence. While I don't think that the words "McCarthy Committee" are a particularly good characterization of what was suggested, I agree that IGC would not be a particularly good choice of locus for work on this, and not only because of the difficulties in IGC with reaching consensus on much of anything. (These difficulties have existed for a long time, since well before either BestBits of JNC were founded.) > I for one cannot imagine a scenario in which this would not do much > more harm than good. There had already been much negative fallout > from JNC members interrogating others on this list and the Best Bits > lists by about their funding and demanding they take particular > accountability and transparency measures. We could not withstand > another such inquisition without a foundation of mutual trust and > respect, which frankly will take much time to rebuild, beginning with > an adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners. Given that the initial set of pointed questions were sparked by the initial Bestbits meeting having been part of a formal "capacity building" programme funded in part by the US and UK government, and given that about half of that initial Bestbits meeting was spent on building a "civil society" position which turned so well aligned with the interests of the US that the US government then in turn referenced it officially --while the existence of that "capacity building" programme had not in any way at the time been disclosed to the participants of that Bestbits meeting-- I find it quite remarkable when then it is proposed that rebuilding "a foundation of mutual trust and respect" should be achieved not by taking accountability and transparency measures, but instead by means of an "adjustment in attitude from the inquisitioners". Effectively this is essentially just another demand for people to shut up in regard to a particular set of topics. Recently there was a posting on the IGC list, by an IGC coordinator, which essentially suggested that demands for democracy in Internet governance should not be brought up because they can spark conflict. Now Jeremy, one of the founders and key leaders of Bestbits, essentially says the same about a suggestion to work towards a standard for *voluntary* disclosures in the area of accountability and transparency. So if we were to accept both of this, we should not talk about the need for democracy, and also not talk about the need for accountability and transparency within civil society. Greetings, Norbert From lists at digitaldissidents.org Sun May 31 17:57:00 2015 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 23:57:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: <5569FF6B.2090808@riseup.net> References: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> <5569FF6B.2090808@riseup.net> Message-ID: <556B83AC.4060209@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Dear Willi, I have studied Tor quite thoroughly and have run it for quite some years. If you're claiming it's unsafe, please be precise and substantiate your argument or don't make it. Peoples security is depending on it. Best, Niels On 05/30/2015 08:20 PM, willi uebelherr wrote: > Dear Azrak Khan, many thanks for your participation. Maybe, from > your base of experience, you can create a bigger diversity. > > Dear Niels, search in the internet. You will find a big pool of > information. > > Use one person as a distribution point: Bruce Schneier from EFF. > Maybe, he is also on this list and can make it more clearly. Or > Jeremy Malcom can help us. > > Use the texts from Robert Graham. > > All this texts are very good startpoints to get a view around and > about the problematic. We should try to go the reality. > > many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina > > > > Am 30/05/2015 um 11:14 schrieb Niels ten Oever: >> Dear Willi, >> >> To do this kind of timing attack you will need to have the >> resources to monitor large parts of the Internet and/or have >> control of many Tor relays and exit nodes. >> >> Even in the NSA slides leaked by Snowden is was confirmed the NSA >> did not have the ability to deanonymise Tor traffic. >> >> Would be great to see the research papers where you are basing >> your statements on. >> >> As you know the traffic between the different hops on the Tor >> network are encrypted, and the different hops are unknown. So I >> don't know how you think that having access to an IXP would >> somehow break encryption (between the hops) or the anonymity in >> general. >> >> Best, Niels - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVa4OrAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjps74H/AjkQXUd/Fg7oyA7knSq1DJw TWuK4AykoC0foobZ7a+RAxlF4s5rmxvMR0OXVQpsQcRoaKVvK57BVn+MWL4Yqn4j sKk04590vSSurlxLclTXHov88yXYT8Gc7KGVuMm1T08rf7A/gIyJU2ARsaj52rYw jC6wZPsFEmqU8xIdYlSCSifiACzVvHcod4u3BS4CZgLKC9r46OLWmN97DO3zXv8C U6C5zl4Tt8LcHu6lysaiMc31YYnF9y0BDreNCmVGNSeLjoWbn5s3bE0QMG2HGush GZxxIWXJU1bFrrVvGiHKoNVyrOBVBwTqZWWada6SigxzhMBS85YyQOpk3bP9kFQ= =SlEV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists at digitaldissidents.org Sun May 31 18:07:00 2015 From: lists at digitaldissidents.org (Niels ten Oever) Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 00:07:00 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part of a new Advox series) In-Reply-To: References: <55666C99.4020406@riseup.net> <5569C5D9.8050906@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <556B8604.9070007@digitaldissidents.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hi Azrak, Thanks for you email! These are valid concerns, but one can seriously ask whether any LEA would ever be effective using this strategy, the irony is that there more exit nodes there are, the higher the anonimity is and the smaller chances a LEA will find something useful. Generally it is a good practice to use an exit node that is not located in the country you are currently in, I think that is also a default setting in Tor. Next to that, using a VPN while using Tor is generally a good idea to add encryption to all your traffic to protect it upon entering and exiting the network. . Cheers, Niels On 05/30/2015 04:49 PM, azrak_khan at hotmail.com wrote: > Dear Niels, > > This was a very interesting topic of discussion at one of our > capacity building events. Law enforcement agencies are trying very > hard to decode or deanonymoise ToR in Pakistan as they believe most > of the violent online political extremism is happening behind it. > How they have reached the conclusion remains a mystery. The growing > school of thought with in LEAs circle in Pakistan regarding > deanonymising ToR is focused on establishing many exit/relay nodes > and try to capture traffic from it and than hope to decode it. I > believe thats what NSA was also trying to do but on a bigger scale > without any success or atleast thats what we know if it. > > Best, > > Arzak > > > > Sent by Outlook for Android > _____________________________ From:Niels ten Oever Subject:Re: > [bestbits] Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor > (part of a new Advox series) To:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > > > Dear Willi, > > To do this kind of timing attack you will need to have the > resources to monitor large parts of the Internet and/or have > control of many Tor relays and exit nodes. > > Even in the NSA slides leaked by Snowden is was confirmed the NSA > did not have the ability to deanonymise Tor traffic. > > Would be great to see the research papers where you are basing > your statements on. > > As you know the traffic between the different hops on the Tor > network are encrypted, and the different hops are unknown. So I > don't know how you think that having access to an IXP would somehow > break encryption (between the hops) or the anonymity in general. > > Best, > > Niels > > On 05/28/2015 03:17 AM, willi uebelherr wrote: > >> Dear Carolina > >> "... This makes it nearly impossible for anyone monitoring the >> Internet to understand where the traffic is coming from and >> where it is going..." > >> This is not true. Its a illusion. We don't have control about >> our physical networks. But all this networks are connected in >> the IXP's (Internet Exchange Points) and give the access to the >> data to the state institutions. And this state institutions work >> in cooperation. > >> With a simple time based correlation you can see the traffic >> outside of the TOR network. The way from the client to the >> network and from the network to the server and reverse. Then you >> know, who communicate and with what. > >> Nearly 80% of all this "anonymisation" are open today. > >> many greetings, willi Buenos Aires, Argentina > > >> Am 27/05/2015 um 14:44 schrieb Carolina Rossini: >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mahsa Alimardani >>> Date: Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:20 PM Subject: [gvadvocacy] >>> Demystifying the Onion Router: GV Face Tomorrow with Tor (part >>> of a new Advox series) >>> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> As part of a new series, Advocacy is starting conversations >>> with technical security and circumvention experts. Our goals is >>> to help the community better understand how these tools work, >>> and how we can use them. The subject on our agenda are the >>> tools associated with the *Tor Project < >>> https://www.torproject.org/>*. >>> >>> Join us tomorrow at 12pm ET/ 6pm CET. The hangout is happening >>> here < >>> https://plus.google.com/events/cnqsccekj03r95a4ehialintv04>, >>> and you are all invited to join, and participate through >>> online questions. >>> >>> Here's a bit about the conversation, and Tor: >>> >>> *What exactly is the Tor network? Tor enables citizens to >>> bypass government censorship and allows dissidents to >>> communicate anonymously. Sometimes however, it has been used by >>> criminals for nefarious activities, such as selling drugs or >>> distributing child pornography. The network also facilitates >>> special sites that allow website owners and their users to >>> remain anonymous through “hidden services”. This has become >>> popularly known as the “dark web”.How does it work? The Tor >>> network is a collection of servers located across the world. >>> The network helps users connect to the Internet anonymously by >>> sending traffic between at least three Tor servers before >>> allowing it to reach its destination. This makes it nearly >>> impossible for anyone monitoring the Internet to understand >>> where the traffic is coming from and where it is going. Tor >>> “exit nodes” are the final set of servers used in the >>> connection process. This is where a user’s traffic exits the >>> Tor network and connects to the world wide web. These nodes are >>> set up by volunteers, with a few organisations who maintain >>> larger exits, including universities and individual >>> activists.In order to better understand the tool, its uses, and >>> its controversies, Global Voices’ Iran editor Mahsa Alimardani >>> will talk with Iranian Tor developer Nima Fatemi and Tor’s head >>> of communications, activist Kate Krauss.* >>> >>> Warmly, Mahsa > > >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your >> settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > - -- Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJVa4YDAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpORkIAKYTa6e2qw5yWqFi7KcguDzS 92YeJWEmZfAMVC1+ij2lW0vzOHUneCtAiaHDIJXgL7+nwBJgWKs/j3j+eKp1jHoV HiZmf6bRkNn8GxtDYCWU3YqIBq8IcL/w1nMdqYnAkMI0XATtBV5OyIstaM5XIehz asBZnZop5GgHxEvrI/72gbW/KMPETmBbnjOyl/hH6PQxlex35e44P8UkPqtXQJx5 FcnOe3PDZ6MH997gtg7TVIBbTo86KO23ySzUN2xTxKxD7Jdpm9tcMtG73gEo/jK6 1kP7/BUPdpf7CxdNENk9+Xb/paVxWfn693THqLTlpCVo+2Ll2pBwnh4RH1Ty63k= =1wH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pileleji at ymca.gm Thu May 7 11:44:44 2015 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 15:44:44 +0000 Subject: [bestbits] IGF/MAG Update - May 2015 (IGF Policy Menus & Best Practice Forums) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for Sharing Lea, Poncelet On 6 May 2015 at 10:05, Lea Kaspar wrote: > Dear friends, > > > Find below a status update on two IGF MAG inter-sessional activities > (drafted by ISOC's Constance Bommelaer): *Best Practice Forums (BPFs)* > and developing the *IGF Policy Menus for Connecting the Next Billion*. To > remind you, this work is based on the input received during the public > consultation period launched earlier this year. Mailing lists to engage > in various BPFs are open to all interested parties - and very welcome (see > below). > > > In addition, MAG has now concluded the initial evaluation round of > workshop proposals for the annual IGF. This year, MAG members evaluated *over > 250 propos**als*. A large *majority of proposals were submitted by > civil society*, followed by the technical community and the private > sector, then intergovernmental organisations, and governments. Regarding > the correspondence between the submitted proposals and the IGF 2015 > sub-themes, *Internet and human rights *was the sub-theme with the > largest number of proposals, while Critical Internet resources and Openness > had the smallest numbers of proposals. Once the Secretariat collates > scores submitted by the MAG, the ranked proposals will be reviewed by MAG > members at the upcoming MAG meeting in Geneva, May 20-22. > > > Hope this is informative. Happy to answer any questions. > > > Best wishes, > > Lea > > > --- > > > Dear Participants, > > > > (CC to the MAG) > > > > This is to give an update on the status of the IGF 2015 Best Practices > Forums and on the inter-sessional work underway to develop “Policy Menus > for Connecting the Next Billion”. > > > > *I - IGF Best Practices Forums* > > > > A public webinar was organized on 2 April including the different > coordinators to exchange insights on the working methodology. > > > > For the convenience of the group, I am reattaching the framework document > that was used as a basis for last year's BPFs, acknowledging that each > group adapts the methodology in a flexible way to the needs of the specific > topics. > > > > *Themes* *and coordinators*: > > - Regulation and mitigation of unwanted communications > : > Markus Kummer > - Establishing and supporting Computer Security Incident Response > Teams (CSIRTs) > : > Markus Kummer > - Developing meaningful multistakeholder participation mechanisms > : > Avri Doria > - Practices to countering abuse against women online > : > Jac Kee and Subi Chatuvedi > - IPv6 > : > Izumi Okutani and Susan Chalmers > - IXPs > : > Desirée Zachariah (an additional volunteer would be welcome) > > In the coming weeks, outreach efforts will focus on involving the relevant > expert stakeholders in each group, as some groups are more active than > others. Leaders of Dynamic Coalitions > are also invited to > participate. The *mailing lists* are open to all interested stakeholders ( > *sign-up* *here* ). > > > > *II - “Policy Menus for Connecting the Next Billion”* > > > > The MAG, led by a working group of volunteers (Amb. Benedicto Fonseca > Filho (lead), Virat Bhatia, Lynn St. Amour, Baher Esmat, Avri Doria and > Constance Bommelaer (Advisor to the Chair)) has continued to work on the > draft framework for developing “Policy Menus for Connecting the Next > Billion”, based on the results of the *public* *consultation* > (scroll down on IGF homepage) launched > by the IGF Secretariat in January and February 2015. > > > > A formal invitation was extended to all *national > and regional initiatives* both to contribute to the horizontal global > inter-sessional theme for this year: *"*Policy Menus for Connecting the > Next Billion", and to develop messages and/ or conclusions that will > support the global IGF inter-sessional work. > > > > During its next physical meeting (20-22 May, Geneva), the MAG will discuss > with a view to finalizing the *draft* > > *framework* for developing “Policy Menus on Connecting the Next > Billion”. > > > > Thank you and best regards, > > > > Constance Bommelaer > > Senior Director, Global Internet Policy > > The Internet Society > > http://www.isoc.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm www.waigf.org www.aficta.org www.itag.gm www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu May 7 12:54:04 2015 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (Jefsey) Date: Thu, 07 May 2015 18:54:04 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Fnancial economy of Internet freedom [was Political economy ....] In-Reply-To: <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net> References: <554B3493.9070802@itforchange.net> <554B79E3.60908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: At 16:42 07/05/2015, parminder wrote: >>Seems interesting. But what I am interested in first, is in >>dissecting the financing of the internet freedom activists. Does >>someone knows something trustable to read in that area? >> >>When there is a meeting somewhere in the world, how civil society >>members happen to be there? Who does actually pull the string >>wallets and wallet strings? Who does foot the civil society bill? >> >>Just to know how politically (un)correct should my association be >>to qualify? And where to apply? > >Yes, JFC, this is perhaps the single most important issue - to try >to understand and perhaps apply corrective pressures on the current >IG related civil society (CS) configuration... But unfortunately the >involved CS is unable to build any kind of consensus on this all >important issue, or to act on it... It is so surprising that a >sector whose raison d'etre is to seek accountability from all those >who are powerful itself refuses to to be held accountable. In fact, >raising this issue in these civil society groups has attracted most >vile responses, as for instance Norbert faced a year or two back. The issue as I see it is as follows: - Multistakeholderism will be with us by dominance decision. This dominance will include the masters of the "Internet Global Community". Read it: an RFC 6852 group ICANN, Davos, IETF, ISOC, RIRs, with NTIA as a watch dog, and FCC as legal liaison with Congres Lobbies, where the public will be consulted as it is by ICANN today: comments on leaders' decision sites, drinks in NETmundial cocktails around the world, social engineering by press releases, CS Buzz on a few sponsorded activists lists where a mere hundred of people will casually discuss digital human cyber rights in a numeric world virtual acosystem where Govs and ITU are the evil. - the NSA-compatible Unicode limited technology will continue to help Google, Apple, FaceBook, Microsoft, etc. to control and collect mentally formated e-purses round the world. - Until a Xerox/NSA-accepted NDN Hollywood technology helps securing the DRMs and call on the USCC to hunt the Chinese hackers and the vilain Pirates. I do not want to belong to this context. So, I frankly do not give a damn about vile responses (sorry I do not recall about the Norbert's suffering, but I experienced something interesting when the IESG ***voted*** ("we hate kings, votes ...") me out the IETF for having obtained (by multiple consensusses ... against what I asked) a less bad RFC 4444 for cultures than the one the business/political Unicode consortium wanted to impose on them as a market. So, I suppose there are enough people throughout the world being fed-up with the multistakeholderist promises above, to say "I do co-create a LIBRE civil transparency registry where evey organization, including single manned initiative and mailing lists, can register, document their funding, document their history, tell about their followers, get commented, and obtain trust and alliance-meshing from this. This will be transparent "omnistakeholderism" among those who want to be CS lead users. >My organisation has proposed to some key players to set up a online >register of some kind for CS players in the IG space, on the lines >of EU Transparency Register >http://ec.europa.eu/transparencyregister/public/homePage.do >. But our discussions went nowhere. > >Once, again, I appeal to key CS groups involved here to join >efforts to develop such an online register. If it is needed for >corporate lobbyists, it is today needed much more for CS groups as >well. My organisation is happy to take a lead to be the initial >point of contact for those interested to develop such an initiative. >Once there is an initial mass of groups/ individuals they can >together choose an appropriate governance structure for the initiative. I suggest 1) the governance to be as mechanic as possible to be neutral - and the registry mecanism to be copied in OpenSource and given to other CivilSociety areas of interests. 2) a "meme bank" to be attached. Where organizations and people might drop memes on what they support/proposes/suggest. We are not interested in votes, but in good suggestions being available to everyone. >So many IG documents to day speak of transparency among stakeholder >groups, but little is done in practice (including the CSTD working >group on IGF improvement, and the much celebrated Net Mundial >document). CS must of course take the lead, and the conscience >keeper of governance processes. Amen. jfc >parminder > >> >>jfc > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >Content-Disposition: inline > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org >To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > >For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu May 7 19:40:40 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 19:40:40 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] ITU Kaleidoscope 2015 - 2nd issue of Call for Papers (Deadline: 6 July 2015) Message-ID: *From:* Brandao, Caroline [mailto:caroline.brandao at itu.int] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:53 PM *Subject:* ITU Kaleidoscope 2015 - 2nd issue of Call for Papers (Deadline: 6 July 2015) *ITU Kaleidoscope 2015* *Trust in the Information Society* The 7th ITU Kaleidoscope academic conference 9-11 December 2015, Barcelona, Spain *Call for Papers* 2nd issue *Deadline:* *6 July 2015 * *Kaleidoscope 2015: Trust in the Information Society* is the seventh in a series of peer-reviewed academic conferences organized by ITU to bring together a wide range of views from universities, industry and research institutions. The aim of the Kaleidoscope conferences is to identify emerging developments in information and communication technologies (ICTs) and, in particular, areas in need of international standards to aid the healthy development of the Information Society. The ‘Connect 2020’ framework embedded in ITU’s Strategic Plan elaborates a guiding vision for the future development of the Information Society, focusing on inclusive and sustainable growth of the ICT ecosystem. *Kaleidoscope 2015: Trust in the Information Society *will analyze means of building information infrastructures deserving our trust. The event will highlight ideas and research that will help ensure the Information Society’s growth in inclusivity and sustainability thanks to its trusted foundations. ICT is the common thread tying together all walks of life. It is at the heart of innovation in areas as diverse as energy management, transportation, healthcare, education and financial services, and ‘always-on’ network access has been a welcome driver of economic growth and social development. The ICT ecosystem has become a facility we can no longer do without, making it essential to ensure that users of ICTs may trust in the Information Society. Concerns continue to grow around what has been dubbed the “darker side” of the Information Society. All industry sectors are expected to deploy technologies under the banner of IoT, and the interconnection of all types of objects – from vehicles to streetlights and household appliances – gives rise to unprecedented implications for data security, the reliability of critical infrastructure and the privacy and safety of the world’s citizens. Given the borderless nature of the network, addressing concerns around security is not only a national priority; it is inherently global. A more comprehensive approach to security is required, taken in a view of the entire digital ecosystem. Kaleidoscope 2015 will provide a platform to analyze the notion of “trust” in the ICT context as well as innovations embedding trust into ICT ecosystems and infrastructures to bring greater certainty, confidence and predictability to our interactions within the Information Society. *Kaleidoscope 2015: Trust in the Information Society *calls for original research papers offering bold, innovative approaches to the research into and development of standardized platforms for the benefit of all, in particular underserved communities and citizens of developing countries. A key point will be the identification of the main challenges still to be addressed to develop standards supporting the development of trustworthy information infrastructures. The 2015 edition of Kaleidoscope will contribute to the celebration of ITU’s 150th anniversary, which will be a tribute to the extraordinary innovation of the global ICT community. The story of ITU is one of international cooperation among governments, industry players, civil society, academia and research institutes. ITU has a proud history as a key platform for the international community to bring cohesion to innovation in the ICT sector, and Kaleidoscope 2015 will celebrate academia’s immense contribution in service of ITU’s mission to ‘Connect the World’. *Audience* Kaleidoscope 2015 targets specialists in the fields of ICT and socio-economic development, including researchers, academics, students, engineers, policymakers, regulators, innovators and futurists. *Date and venue* 9-11 December 2015, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain *Submission of papers* Prospective authors from ITU Member States are invited to submit full, original papers with a maximum length of 4,500 words. The submission should be within eight pages, including a summary and references, using the template available on the event website. All papers will go through a double-blind peer-review process. Submission must be made electronically; see http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://itu.int/go/K-2015 for more details on online submission (EDAS). Paper proposals will be evaluated according to content, originality, clarity, relevance to the conference’s theme and, in particular, *significance to future standards*. *Deadlines* Submission of full paper proposals: *6 July 2015* Notification of paper acceptance: *18 September 2015* Submission of camera-ready accepted papers: *9 October 2015* *Publication and presentation* Accepted and presented papers will be published in the Conference Proceedings and submitted for inclusion in IEEE *Xplore*. The best papers will also be evaluated for potential publication in *IEEE Communications Magazine *. In addition, updated versions of selected papers will be considered for publication in the *International Journal of Technology Marketing* , the *International Journal of IT Standards & Standardization Research* *, *or* the **Journal of ICT Standardization* *.* *Awards* A prize fund totaling USD 10,000 will be shared among the authors of the three best papers, as judged by the Steering and Technical Programme Committees. In addition, young authors of up to 30 years of age presenting accepted papers will receive Young Author Recognition certificates. *Keywords* Information and communication technologies (ICTs), standards, standardization, technological innovation, information society, converging technologies, ubiquitous networks, internet of things, trustworthiness, security, privacy, reliability. *Suggested (non-exclusive) list of topics* *Track 1: Trust in technology and network infrastructure* · Pervasive and trusted platforms and infrastructure · Virtualization of resources including network functions virtualization and software-defined networking · Future mobile infrastructure: 5G and beyond · Architecture considerations for seamless mobility · Architecture for machine-oriented communications such as M2M, IoT, sensor networks · Security-, privacy-, and trust-enhancing technologies · Trustworthy infrastructure for content delivery networks · Enterprise integration and service-oriented architecture · Human-centric, cognitive and context-aware systems and functions · Quality of service, quality of experience, quality of security service · Protocol architecture convergence and interoperability *Track 2: Trustworthy applications and services* · Trust in ubiquitous applications and services: connected vehicles, healthcare, homes, etc. · Trust in cloud computing · Privacy, trust and big data · Trustworthiness in social networking services and social media · Emerging video services and applications · Trustworthy location-based services · Digital financial services · Artificial intelligence and deep learning · Augmented and virtual reality · Robots and drones *Track 3: Social, economic and policy aspects of trustworthy ICTs * · Strategies and policies enabling an information society · Actors, value chains and business models in an information society · Rights and responsibilities of connected citizens · Conformance and interoperability aspects · Deployment strategies and scenarios for trustworthy applications and services in developing countries · Adoption of ICTs to enhance environmental sustainability · Inclusiveness, affordability and equal access · Harmonization strategies for international, regional and national standards and de-facto standards · Policy issues raised by over-the-top services · Network neutrality and trustworthiness · Societal impact of ICTs · Education about standardization *General Chairman*: Pilar Dellunde, Vice-Rector, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain *Steering Committee* Christoph Dosch, ITU-R Study Group 6 Chairman; IRT GmbH, Germany Kai Jakobs, RWTH Aachen University, Germany Mitsuji Matsumoto, Waseda University, Japan Mostafa Hashem Sherif, AT&T, USA *Host Committee* *Chairman*: Pilar Orero, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain Anna Matamala, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain Xavier Ribes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain *Technical Programme Committee* *Chairman:* Kai Jakobs, RWTH Aachen University, Germany The Technical Programme Committee is composed of over 150 subject-matter experts. Details are available at http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://itu.int/go/K-2015-progcom *Additional information* For additional information, please visit the conference website: http://redirect.state.sbu/?url=http://itu.int/go/K-2015 Inquiries should be addressed to Alessia Magliarditi, ITU, Switzerland, at kaleidoscope at itu.int ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: HD_Call-for-paper_V2_379165.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 1805037 bytes Desc: not available URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri May 8 11:32:42 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 11:32:42 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] High Commissioner for Human Rights Consultation on CS Spaces Message-ID: Some of you might consider participating in this consultation. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-_qxXl-h9XV4oEv083_s6qrGPiAJkC6o7QURlEkTxtw/edit Consultation - How to create and maintain civil society space? What works? A Report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights – Deadline 30 June 2015 Dear All, The High Commissioner for Human Rights is putting together a report of practical recommendations on how to create and maintain the space for civil society to work freely and independently. Get the Note Verbale The exercise of public freedoms (expression, association, peaceful assembly) and the right to participate in public life are at the heart of civic activity. They are the "Super Rules" that allow you to do what you do; influence positive change in your communities. Whatever the issue you are working on. And so good laws and rules to guarantee public freedoms, as well as ways to monitor and protect them are a necessary condition. But that's not all. You also need: > a political and public environment that values civil society's contributions > free flow of information > long-term support and resources > space for dialogue and collaboration We want to hear from you about your experiences! Share with us: i) your examples and illustrations of these and other ways to maintain space to work ii) if there are limitations, how do you continue to carry out your activities iii) useful links, tools, resources, guides (whatever the language) Send by 30 June 2015 by email: civilsociety at ohchr.org Be sure to include in the subject heading "Civil Society Space Report - Input". Get the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council here: http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/27/31 -- *Carolina Rossini * *Vice President, International Policy* *Public Knowledge* *http://www.publicknowledge.org/ * + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri May 8 16:56:53 2015 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 17:56:53 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: [Internet Policy] WSIS - Outcome of the UN CSTD negtiations (4-8 May, Geneva) In-Reply-To: <1431111612640.60246@isoc.org> References: <1431111612640.60246@isoc.org> Message-ID: Dear all, sharing this very useful and brief report on the CSTD meeting. Have a nice weekend! Marília ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Constance Bommelaer Date: Fri, May 8, 2015 at 4:00 PM Subject: [Internet Policy] WSIS - Outcome of the UN CSTD negtiations (4-8 May, Geneva) To: Internet Policy External Dear Colleagues, This is to share with you a brief report on the UN CSTD annual session (4-8 May 2015, Geneva). Note that this was the last negotiation phase of the *10-year Review of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)* before the UN General Assembly process begins in June. A report from the CSTD Secretariat, "*Implementing WSIS outcomes: A ten-year review*", was endorsed. A resolution on WSIS was negotiated, which will provide important guidance for the events to happen in New York, in December. And Peter Major (Hungary) was elected Chair of the next CSTD session. On Monday, ISOC’s Vice-President for Global Engagement*, *Raúl Echeberría, delivered a strong statement that I encourage you to read. The ISOC delegation (Konstantinos Komaitis, Nicolas Seidler and myself) interacted with delegations all week, working throughout difficult negotiations. My colleagues will be sharing a blog post on Monday with an in-depth analysis of the outcome. In the meantime and for your convenience, below are a few highlights from the meeting: *Main takeaways of the CSTD*: - Overall, the WSIS resolution (soon available on-line) is very conservative. - The value of multistakeholder cooperation in implementing the WSIS targets was recognized. This is positive. - Issues such as the WSIS+10 modalities and “enhanced cooperation” were discussed, but with no specific outcome. - While not calling explicitly for the renewal of the IGF's mandate, the resolution welcomes the offer from Mexico to host IGF 2016, subject to the decision by UNGA on the renewal. The improvements currently underway are also acknowledged. In clear, this means the IGF will be at the center of the upcoming WSIS+10 negotiations. *Next steps:* The WSIS resolution will feed into ECOSOC (July) and UN GA (Sept – Dec). The membership of these fora being different than CSTD, language can still evolve. For instance, the renewal of the mandate of the IGF could still be included at the UN GA level. Between now and the UN GA, a negotiation process will start in June, towards the High-Level Event on the overall WSIS+10 review, in December. Acknowledging that the WSIS negotiations can be a little difficult to navigate, ISOC will soon publish background information on the process but also on the issues being discussed. More to follow on Monday in Nicolas and Konstantinos' blog post! Best regards, Constance Bommelaer Senior Director, Global Internet Policy The Internet Society www.isoc.org _______________________________________________ To manage your ISOC subscriptions or unsubscribe, please log into the ISOC Member Portal: https://portal.isoc.org/ Then choose Interests & Subscriptions from the My Account menu. -- *Marília Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josh at accessnow.org Mon May 11 16:29:27 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:29:27 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org Message-ID: Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the last few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) draft of our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: - Moved some text around to make it flow better - Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems of a two-tiered Internet - Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many in India, who are just now seeing the final text) *we're now closing this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. * *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any changes, please let me know. Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social media and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind the language - which will also give you an opportunity to voice criticisms not included in the letter. Current list of signers below: AccessGlobalPopular ResistanceUSRootsAction.org USFuture of Music CoalitionUSOpenMediaCanadaThe Media ConsortiumUSSamuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)CanadaBits of FreedomNetherlandsInitiative für NetzfreiheitAustriaIT-Pol DenmarkDenmarkEuropean Digital Rights (EDRi)EUColorofChange.org USxnetSpain The Heliopolis InstituteEgyptZimbabwe Human Rights NGO ForumZimbabweDigital Rights Foundation PakistanKorean Progressive Network JinbonetSouth Korea Movimento MegaBrazilInstituto Bem Estar BrasilBrazilVrijschriftNetherlands Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEMBrazilThe Agency League of MusiciansUSDigitale GesellschaftGermanyIntegrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology for AfricaUgandaProtege Qv CameroonFundacion KarismaColombia -- *Josh Levy* Advocacy Director Access | accessnow.org tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy PGP: 0x84C9F275 Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon May 4 17:41:12 2015 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 17:41:12 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] GCIG Paper No. 12 now online: Solving the International Internet Policy Coordination Problem by Nick Ashton-Hart Message-ID: Today the GCIG secretariat issued working paper No. 12 by Nick Ashton-Hart. *Solving the International Internet Policy Coordination Problem* can be downloaded and read by visiting: https://ourinternet.org/publication/solving-the-international-internet-policy-coordination-problem/. This paper argues that it would be a serious mistake to continue to address Internet-related public policy in subject-area silos, and proposes using existing fora to coordinate at the institutional level to deliver better policy results within existing processes and mandates. It would be greatly appreciated if you shared the link to this new research paper with your colleagues via your social networks. For those of you on Twitter, we have simplified the sharing process by drafting the following Tweet: *Solving the Int'l Internet Policy Coordination Problem [New Report] by @nashtonhart: http://ow.ly/Mv6Pa #GCIG #InternetGovernance* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josh at accessnow.org Mon May 11 16:34:29 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 16:34:29 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies - letter attached. On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy wrote: > Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the last > few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) draft of our > open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. > > As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: > > - Moved some text around to make it flow better > - Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems of > a two-tiered Internet > - Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity > > We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any > glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many in > India, who are just now seeing the final text) > *we're now closing this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. * > > *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your > organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any changes, > please let me know. > > Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social media > and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind the language > - which will also give you an opportunity to voice criticisms not included > in the letter. > > Current list of signers below: > AccessGlobalPopular ResistanceUSRootsAction.org > USFuture of > Music CoalitionUSOpenMediaCanadaThe Media ConsortiumUSSamuelson-Glushko > Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)CanadaBits of > FreedomNetherlandsInitiative für NetzfreiheitAustriaIT-Pol DenmarkDenmarkEuropean > Digital Rights (EDRi)EUColorofChange.org > USxnetSpain > The Heliopolis InstituteEgyptZimbabwe Human Rights NGO ForumZimbabweDigital > Rights Foundation PakistanKorean Progressive Network JinbonetSouth Korea > Movimento MegaBrazilInstituto Bem Estar BrasilBrazilVrijschriftNetherlands > Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEMBrazilThe Agency League > of MusiciansUSDigitale GesellschaftGermanyIntegrating Livelihoods through > Communication Information Technology for AfricaUgandaProtege Qv CameroonFundacion > KarismaColombia > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > -- *Josh Levy* Advocacy Director Access | accessnow.org tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy PGP: 0x84C9F275 Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: open-letter-Zuckerberg-May-11.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 8489 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dbu at donnybu.com Mon May 11 19:59:48 2015 From: dbu at donnybu.com (Donny B.U.) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 06:59:48 +0700 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Josh, Facebook also develops Internet.org in Indonesia. I also have the same concern as written in the letter. Therefor, please put "ICT Watch - Indonesia" as one of the signer. Regards, -dbu- On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Josh Levy wrote: > Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the last > few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) draft of our > open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. > > As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: > > - Moved some text around to make it flow better > - Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems of > a two-tiered Internet > - Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity > > We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any > glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many in > India, who are just now seeing the final text) > *we're now closing this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. * > > *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your > organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any changes, > please let me know. > > Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social media > and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind the language > - which will also give you an opportunity to voice criticisms not included > in the letter. > > Current list of signers below: > AccessGlobalPopular ResistanceUSRootsAction.org > USFuture of > Music CoalitionUSOpenMediaCanadaThe Media ConsortiumUSSamuelson-Glushko > Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)CanadaBits of > FreedomNetherlandsInitiative für NetzfreiheitAustriaIT-Pol DenmarkDenmarkEuropean > Digital Rights (EDRi)EUColorofChange.org > USxnetSpain > The Heliopolis InstituteEgyptZimbabwe Human Rights NGO ForumZimbabweDigital > Rights Foundation PakistanKorean Progressive Network JinbonetSouth Korea > Movimento MegaBrazilInstituto Bem Estar BrasilBrazilVrijschriftNetherlands > Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEMBrazilThe Agency League > of MusiciansUSDigitale GesellschaftGermanyIntegrating Livelihoods through > Communication Information Technology for AfricaUgandaProtege Qv CameroonFundacion > KarismaColombia > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- e: dbu at donnybu.com | t: @donnybu | f: donnybu | w: donnybu.com | p: +62818930932 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From veridiana.alimonti at gmail.com Mon May 11 20:44:01 2015 From: veridiana.alimonti at gmail.com (Veridiana Alimonti) Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 21:44:01 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Josh, one more signature: Coletivo Intervozes (Brazil) Best! Veridiana 2015-05-11 17:34 GMT-03:00 Josh Levy : > Apologies - letter attached. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy wrote: > >> Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the last >> few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) draft of our >> open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. >> >> As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: >> >> - Moved some text around to make it flow better >> - Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems of >> a two-tiered Internet >> - Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity >> >> We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any >> glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many in >> India, who are just now seeing the final text) >> *we're now closing this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. * >> >> *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your >> organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any changes, >> please let me know. >> >> Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social media >> and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind the language >> - which will also give you an opportunity to voice criticisms not included >> in the letter. >> >> Current list of signers below: >> AccessGlobalPopular ResistanceUSRootsAction.org >> USFuture of >> Music CoalitionUSOpenMediaCanadaThe Media ConsortiumUSSamuelson-Glushko >> Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)CanadaBits of >> FreedomNetherlandsInitiative für NetzfreiheitAustriaIT-Pol DenmarkDenmarkEuropean >> Digital Rights (EDRi)EUColorofChange.org >> USxnetSpain >> The Heliopolis InstituteEgyptZimbabwe Human Rights NGO ForumZimbabweDigital >> Rights Foundation PakistanKorean Progressive Network JinbonetSouth Korea >> Movimento MegaBrazilInstituto Bem Estar BrasilBrazilVrijschrift >> Netherlands >> Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEMBrazilThe Agency >> League of MusiciansUSDigitale GesellschaftGermanyIntegrating Livelihoods >> through Communication Information Technology for AfricaUgandaProtege Qv >> CameroonFundacion KarismaColombia >> >> >> -- >> *Josh Levy* >> Advocacy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy >> PGP: 0x84C9F275 >> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 >> >> *Join the Access team - *we're hiring >> ! >> >> > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anriette at apc.org Tue May 12 03:47:46 2015 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:47:46 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] APC, Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD 2015 Message-ID: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org> Dear all Apologies for cross posting. This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in Geneva last week. Best Anriette http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people From ca at cafonso.ca Tue May 12 08:49:35 2015 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:49:35 -0300 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> Hi, Instituto Nupef in Rio de Janeiro endorses it. It would be great if the letter had a paragraph in the introductory part reminding Mr Zuckerberg that it is precisely because of the open, non-discriminatory nature of the Internet that people like him managed to innovate and create initiatives such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc etc. His company should not contribute to close this door to free innovation now. fraternal regards --c.a. Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef www.nupef.org.br On 05/11/2015 05:34 PM, Josh Levy wrote: > Apologies - letter attached. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy > wrote: > > Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the > last few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) > draft of our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. > > As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: > > * Moved some text around to make it flow better > * Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems > of a two-tiered Internet > * Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity > > We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any > glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many > in India, who are just now seeing the final text) *we're now closing > this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. > * > > *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your > organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any > changes, please let me know. > > Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social > media and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind > the language - which will also give you an opportunity to voice > criticisms not included in the letter. > > Current list of signers below: > > Access Global > Popular Resistance US > RootsAction.org > US > Future of Music Coalition US > OpenMedia Canada > The Media Consortium US > Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic > (CIPPIC) Canada > Bits of Freedom Netherlands > Initiative für Netzfreiheit Austria > IT-Pol Denmark Denmark > European Digital Rights (EDRi) EU > ColorofChange.org > US > xnet Spain > The Heliopolis Institute Egypt > Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Zimbabwe > Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan > Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet South Korea > Movimento Mega Brazil > Instituto Bem Estar Brasil Brazil > Vrijschrift Netherlands > > Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEM Brazil > The Agency League of Musicians US > Digitale Gesellschaft Germany > Integrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology > for Africa Uganda > Protege Qv Cameroon > Fundacion Karisma Colombia > > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > From tisrael at cippic.ca Tue May 12 10:11:26 2015 From: tisrael at cippic.ca (Tamir Israel) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 10:11:26 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> References: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <55520A0E.6010107@cippic.ca> Thank you for bringing this up, Carlos. I think it's implicit in the 'innovation without permission' concept. Net neutrality is about preventing gatekeepers from picking downstream winners and losers, and no one knows this better than the current set of 'winners'. Best, Tamir On 5/12/2015 8:49 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Hi, Instituto Nupef in Rio de Janeiro endorses it. It would be great if > the letter had a paragraph in the introductory part reminding Mr > Zuckerberg that it is precisely because of the open, non-discriminatory > nature of the Internet that people like him managed to innovate and > create initiatives such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc etc. His > company should not contribute to close this door to free innovation now. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > Carlos A. Afonso > Instituto Nupef > www.nupef.org.br > > On 05/11/2015 05:34 PM, Josh Levy wrote: >> Apologies - letter attached. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy > > wrote: >> >> Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the >> last few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) >> draft of our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. >> >> As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: >> >> * Moved some text around to make it flow better >> * Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems >> of a two-tiered Internet >> * Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity >> >> We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any >> glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many >> in India, who are just now seeing the final text) *we're now closing >> this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. >> * >> >> *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your >> organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any >> changes, please let me know. >> >> Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social >> media and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind >> the language - which will also give you an opportunity to voice >> criticisms not included in the letter. >> >> Current list of signers below: >> >> Access Global >> Popular Resistance US >> RootsAction.org >> US >> Future of Music Coalition US >> OpenMedia Canada >> The Media Consortium US >> Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic >> (CIPPIC) Canada >> Bits of Freedom Netherlands >> Initiative für Netzfreiheit Austria >> IT-Pol Denmark Denmark >> European Digital Rights (EDRi) EU >> ColorofChange.org >> US >> xnet Spain >> The Heliopolis Institute Egypt >> Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Zimbabwe >> Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan >> Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet South Korea >> Movimento Mega Brazil >> Instituto Bem Estar Brasil Brazil >> Vrijschrift Netherlands >> >> Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEM Brazil >> The Agency League of Musicians US >> Digitale Gesellschaft Germany >> Integrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology >> for Africa Uganda >> Protege Qv Cameroon >> Fundacion Karisma Colombia >> >> >> >> -- >> *Josh Levy* >> Advocacy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy >> PGP: 0x84C9F275 >> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 >> >> *Join the Access team - *we're hiring >> ! >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Josh Levy* >> Advocacy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy >> PGP: 0x84C9F275 >> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 >> >> *Join the Access team - *we're hiring >> ! >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From julian at colnodo.apc.org Tue May 12 10:39:29 2015 From: julian at colnodo.apc.org (Julian Casasbuenas G.) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 09:39:29 -0500 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> References: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <555210A1.7070204@colnodo.apc.org> Hello, We agree with Carlos comments and Colnodo from Colombia wants also to endorse the letter, Best, Julián Casasbuenas G. Director Colnodo El 12/05/15 a las 07:49, Carlos A. Afonso escibió: > Hi, Instituto Nupef in Rio de Janeiro endorses it. It would be great if > the letter had a paragraph in the introductory part reminding Mr > Zuckerberg that it is precisely because of the open, non-discriminatory > nature of the Internet that people like him managed to innovate and > create initiatives such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc etc. His > company should not contribute to close this door to free innovation now. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > Carlos A. Afonso > Instituto Nupef > www.nupef.org.br > > On 05/11/2015 05:34 PM, Josh Levy wrote: >> Apologies - letter attached. >> >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy > > wrote: >> >> Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the >> last few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) >> draft of our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. >> >> As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: >> >> * Moved some text around to make it flow better >> * Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems >> of a two-tiered Internet >> * Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity >> >> We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any >> glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many >> in India, who are just now seeing the final text) *we're now closing >> this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. >> * >> >> *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your >> organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any >> changes, please let me know. >> >> Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social >> media and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind >> the language - which will also give you an opportunity to voice >> criticisms not included in the letter. >> >> Current list of signers below: >> >> Access Global >> Popular Resistance US >> RootsAction.org >> US >> Future of Music Coalition US >> OpenMedia Canada >> The Media Consortium US >> Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic >> (CIPPIC) Canada >> Bits of Freedom Netherlands >> Initiative für Netzfreiheit Austria >> IT-Pol Denmark Denmark >> European Digital Rights (EDRi) EU >> ColorofChange.org >> US >> xnet Spain >> The Heliopolis Institute Egypt >> Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Zimbabwe >> Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan >> Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet South Korea >> Movimento Mega Brazil >> Instituto Bem Estar Brasil Brazil >> Vrijschrift Netherlands >> >> Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEM Brazil >> The Agency League of Musicians US >> Digitale Gesellschaft Germany >> Integrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology >> for Africa Uganda >> Protege Qv Cameroon >> Fundacion Karisma Colombia >> >> >> >> -- >> *Josh Levy* >> Advocacy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy >> PGP: 0x84C9F275 >> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 >> >> *Join the Access team - *we're hiring >> ! >> >> >> >> >> -- >> *Josh Levy* >> Advocacy Director >> Access | accessnow.org >> >> tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy >> PGP: 0x84C9F275 >> Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 >> >> *Join the Access team - *we're hiring >> ! >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Colnodo - Uso estratégico de Internet para el desarrollo *Julián Casasbuenas G.* Director Tels: 57-1-2324246, 57-315-2585596 Cel. 57-315-3339099 Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- www.apc.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_firma_digital.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4162 bytes Desc: not available URL: From joly at punkcast.com Tue May 12 12:33:10 2015 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:33:10 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?WEBCAST_THURS/FRI_=E2=80=93_Global_Conferenc?= =?UTF-8?Q?e_on_Internet_Governance_and_Cyber-Security_=40_Columbia_SIPA?= Message-ID: This is as strong an assembly of Internet Governance experts as NYC has ever seen! ISOC is well represented by President/CEO Kathy Brown, Konstantinos Komaitis from our policy staff, Michael Nelson from our DC Chapter, plus former CTO Leslie Daigle and our co-founder Vint Cerf. Note that a number of background papers have been contributed by the GCIG and by speakers including 'On the Nature of the Internet ' by Leslie Daigle. The conference itself is fully subscribed, but please enjoy the livestream. joly posted: "On Thursday May 14 and Friday May 15 2015 the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs(SIPA) and the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) will present the Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security at Columbia U" [image: SIPA_GCIG_Conference] On *Thursday May 14* and* Friday May 15* 2015 the Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) and the Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG) will present the *Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security * at Columbia University in NYC. Over 40 speakers – including*Vint Cerf*,* Kathy Brown*, *Fadi Chehadé*, *Larry Strickling*, *David Gross*, *Tim Wu*, *Leslie Daigle*,* Rebecca Mackinnon*, *Konstantinos Komaitis,* *Michael Nelson*, and *Laura DeNardis*, will discuss the most pressing policy issues in the worlds of internet governance and cyber-security including privacy, security, innovation, international trade and cross border data flows, data protectionism, human rights, freedom of expression and more. The conference will be webcast live via a joint effort of the Internet Society and the SIPA IT Department. *What: Conference on Internet Governance and Cyber-Security * *Where: Italian Academy, Columbia University NYC* *When: Thursday May 14 09:00-21:00 EDT (13:00-01:00 UTC) and Friday May 15 2015 09:00-14:00 EDT (13:00-18:00 UTC)* *Agenda: https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/cross-cutting-initiatives/cyber-security/agenda * *Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/SIPA * *Twitter: @ColombiaSIPA * Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/7767 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Tue May 12 12:40:10 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 22:10:10 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] APC, Internet Democracy, IFLA statement at CSTD 2015 In-Reply-To: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org> References: <5551B022.1060007@apc.org> Message-ID: <55522CEA.8060501@itforchange.net> This is the statement made by IT for Change in the same meeting... http://www.itforchange.net/IT_for_Change_statement_to_CSTD "IT for Change was at the 18th annual session of the United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development . We delivered the following intervention during the plenary discussion reviewing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This meeting of the Commission was supposed to input into the WSIS plus 10 review to be taken up in December, 2015, by the UN General Assembly. Unfortunately, even as critical issues about the Internet - most with significant global political dimensions- are increasingly gathering momentum, the Commission's proceedings saw a complete political stalemate. Anyone sitting through the five days of the annual session would have got the impression that all is truly well with the Internet and its global societal impact! Our statement speaks out against such complacency andabdication of global political responsibility by key actors." parminder On Tuesday 12 May 2015 01:17 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > Apologies for cross posting. > > This is the APC, Internet Democracy and IFLA statement which was tabled > and read at the Commission for Science and Technology 18th Session in > Geneva last week. > > Best > > Anriette > > http://www.apc.org/en/news/statement-we-remain-strongly-committed-goal-people > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josh at accessnow.org Tue May 12 17:17:07 2015 From: josh at accessnow.org (Josh Levy) Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 17:17:07 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] Final letter to Zuckerberg re: Internet.org In-Reply-To: <555210A1.7070204@colnodo.apc.org> References: <5551F6DF.5010206@cafonso.ca> <555210A1.7070204@colnodo.apc.org> Message-ID: Hi again - Thanks to everyone who has weighed in and signed on to the letter to Mark Zuckerberg. We're now at 47 signers from 27 countries and regions - listed below. The letter is finalized but we'll still be taking signers through tomorrow (Wednesday) as we get a campaign in motion to announce the letter and exert pressure on FB - *so there's still time to add your organization's name. * Thanks again, Josh Initiative für NetzfreiheitAustria Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEMBrazilColetivo Intervozes BrazilInstituto Bem Estar BrasilBrazilInstituto NUPEF BrazilMovimento Mega BrazilProtege Qv CameroonSamuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)CanadaAgeia Densi ColombiaColombiaColnodo ColombiaFundacion KarismaColombiaRedPaTodosColombiaIT-Pol DenmarkDenmarkUsuarios DigitalesEcuadorThe Heliopolis InstituteEgyptEuropean Digital Rights (EDRi) EUFree Press UnlimitedEUDigitale GesellschaftGermanyAccessGlobalOpenMedia GlobalData Roads FoundationGlobal International Modern Media InstituteIcelandIT for ChangeIndiaICT Watch - IndonesiaIndonesiaKICTANetKenyaRed en Defensa de los Derechos Digitales (R3D)MexicoBits of FreedomNetherlandsVrijschriftNetherlandsParadigm Initiative NigeriaNigeriaDigital Rights Foundation PakistanInternet Policy Observatory PakistanPakistanMedia Matters for Democracy (Pakistan)Pakistan IPANDETECPanamaTEDICParaguayJust Associates Southern AfricaSouth Africa Korean Progressive Network JinbonetSouth Korea xnetSpainIntegrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology for AfricaUgandaUnwanted WitnessUgandaColorofChange.org USFuture of Music CoalitionUSPopular ResistanceUSRootsAction.org USSavvy System DesignsUSThe Agency League of MusiciansUSThe Media ConsortiumUSZimbabwe Human Rights NGO ForumZimbabwe On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:39 AM, Julian Casasbuenas G. < julian at colnodo.apc.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > We agree with Carlos comments and Colnodo from Colombia wants also to > endorse the letter, > > Best, > > Julián Casasbuenas G. > Director Colnodo > > El 12/05/15 a las 07:49, Carlos A. Afonso escibió: > > Hi, Instituto Nupef in Rio de Janeiro endorses it. It would be great if > the letter had a paragraph in the introductory part reminding Mr > Zuckerberg that it is precisely because of the open, non-discriminatory > nature of the Internet that people like him managed to innovate and > create initiatives such as Google, Facebook, Twitter etc etc. His > company should not contribute to close this door to free innovation now. > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > Carlos A. Afonso > Instituto Nupefwww.nupef.org.br > > On 05/11/2015 05:34 PM, Josh Levy wrote: > > Apologies - letter attached. > > On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:29 PM, Josh Levy > wrote: > > Hi all - we've had some great input from a number of people over the > last few days, and we've incorporated it all into (yet another) > draft of our open letter to Mark Zuckerberg on zero rating, attached. > > As you'll see, the substance is mostly unchanged. Here's what we did: > > * Moved some text around to make it flow better > * Added some language about "equality of opportunity" the problems > of a two-tiered Internet > * Fixed a few typos and problems of clarity > > We'd like folks to consider this current text as *final *minus any > glaring problems. To allow for more groups to sign (including many > in India, who are just now seeing the final text) *we're now closing > this up tomorrow (Tuesday) at COB EST. > * > > *Please review the letter and let me know if you can sign*. If your > organization has already signed and is uncomfortable with any > changes, please let me know. > > Once this is live, I encourage you to publicize it through social > media and by blog, and to articulate your reason for getting behind > the language - which will also give you an opportunity to voice > criticisms not included in the letter. > > Current list of signers below: > > Access Global > Popular Resistance US > RootsAction.org > US > Future of Music Coalition US > OpenMedia Canada > The Media Consortium US > Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic > (CIPPIC) Canada > Bits of Freedom Netherlands > Initiative für Netzfreiheit Austria > IT-Pol Denmark Denmark > European Digital Rights (EDRi) EU > ColorofChange.org > US > xnet Spain > The Heliopolis Institute Egypt > Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum Zimbabwe > Digital Rights Foundation Pakistan > Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet South Korea > Movimento Mega Brazil > Instituto Bem Estar Brasil Brazil > Vrijschrift Netherlands > > Instituto Beta para Internet e Democracia - IBIDEM Brazil > The Agency League of Musicians US > Digitale Gesellschaft Germany > Integrating Livelihoods through Communication Information Technology > for Africa Uganda > Protege Qv Cameroon > Fundacion Karisma Colombia > > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring > ! > > > > > -- > *Josh Levy* > Advocacy Director > Access | accessnow.org > > tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy > PGP: 0x84C9F275 > Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 > > *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > [image: Colnodo - Uso estratégico de Internet para el desarrollo] > *Julián Casasbuenas G.* > > Director > > Tels: 57-1-2324246, 57-315-2585596 Cel. 57-315-3339099 > > Diagonal 40A (Antigua Av. 39) No. 14-75, Bogotá, Colombia > > Twitter @jcasasbuenas @colnodo > > > www.colnodo.apc.org - Uso Estratégico de Internet para el Desarrollo > > Miembro de la Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones -APC- > www.apc.org > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- *Josh Levy* Advocacy Director Access | accessnow.org tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy PGP: 0x84C9F275 Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275 *Join the Access team - *we're hiring ! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo_firma_digital.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4162 bytes Desc: not available URL: From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue May 5 08:20:33 2015 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 17:50:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] ICANN Accountability draft proposal posted for public comments Message-ID: Hello Public Comments open on the CCWG Accountability draft proposal https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-accountability-draft-proposal-2015-05-04-en Sivasubramanian M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca Wed May 13 17:41:55 2015 From: roberta.lentz at mcgill.ca (Becky Lentz) Date: Wed, 13 May 2015 17:41:55 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] 2nd call for inquiries re capacity building assistance offer to digital rights advocates Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Greetings again from Montreal. As part of an ongoing experiment in university-civil society collaboration, I¹m sending a second invitation for expressions of interest from potential civil society partners (for Fall 2015, in the Americas only, preferably not in Canada or the US) seeking research that supports their Internet-related policy advocacy work. Of particular interest are proposals from groups involved in IGF (or considering becoming involved in them). Other proposals for research assistance are also invited. As background, previous civil society partners have included Derechos Digitales (DD) in Santiago and the Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) in Kampala. Outcomes for two semester-long projects with DD include the following research brief, which was developed by students and then edited/translated/formatted by DD: https://www.derechosdigitales.org/wp-content/uploads/PP05.pdf; we are now completing a second project featuring a review of the literature (scholarly, news, government, and civil society sources) about the benefits of the IGF for civil society organizations, a report that anticipates the 2015 IGF in Latin America. Testimonials and references from DD are available about how DD has benefited from both of these collaborations. The third semester-long project resulted in establishing 3 university-supported internships to help WOUGNET with a variety of capacity building needs: an Information/ Communications Intern (http://wougnet.org/2014/02/internship-opportunity-informationcommunications -deadline-28th-february/), a Technical Support Intern (https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_tech_ support_intern.pdf), and Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy (https://www.mcgill.ca/arts-internships/files/arts-internships/wougnet_gende r_and_ict_policy_advocacy_0.pdf). Testimonials and references from WOUGNET are also available. The process for identifying a civil society partner for the Fall semester 2015 is now underway; it consists of the following steps: 1) an expression of interest by a potential civil society partner; 2) based on a possible match, an invitation for a short proposal (template will be provided); and 3) if selected, a jointly-crafted memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the selected civil society partner and my class. There are no costs to the partner organization other than a modest commitment of time during the semester-long project. If you have advocacy-related research needs and you think a September-December timeframe for working together with a report available to you in late December 2015 meets your timeframe, please feel free to contact me off-list. Best, Becky Lentz McGill University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Thu May 14 07:04:40 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 14 May 2015 12:04:40 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [A2k] Global Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age In-Reply-To: <120234CBAF61D14E80E1F5DAB85E620C548D5940@V8L-EXCHANGE02.ad.bl.uk> References: <120234CBAF61D14E80E1F5DAB85E620C548D5940@V8L-EXCHANGE02.ad.bl.uk> Message-ID: <014801d08e35$c7674870$5635d950$@gmail.com> Ben, Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, and certainly there is a very sympathetic group of supporters but what I see is a statement which makes the world (legally) safe for (Big) data mining (which is at the moment as you know an anticipated gold mine for major corporations) with only some minor hand waves in the direction of the public interest whether through researchers, libraries or whatever. The document gives some useful (and IMHO appropriate) critiques of IPR’s but seems to stop there midway. Simply removing IPR restrictions on “Big Data”/data mining makes the world safe for Google et al without doing a fig for the rest of us I think. This isn't my area so perhaps I'm misreading but perhaps someone could explain to me how this approach furthers the public interest beyond what is already being widely articulated concerning the knowledge restrictive role of IPR's. If, as this document appears to intend, the effort is directed toward those concerned with the use of Big Data perhaps there could/should have been something more specific and direct concerning how to ensure that Big Data/data mining initiatives/activities are governed in the public interest; are available to be developed by those promoting the public interest; and are realized in full cognizance of the privacy, control and centralization impacts of Big Data initiatives and activities. M -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org] On Behalf Of White, Ben Sent: May 14, 2015 9:54 AM To: Nehaa Chaudhari; sccrs at infoserv.inist.fr; a2k at lists.keionline.org; ip-health at lists.keionline.org; ogp at dgroups.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; asia-commons at googlegroup.com; discuss at 1net.org; cc-affiliates at lists.ibiblio.org; commons-law at sarai.net; copysouth at copysouth.org; digitalconsumers at lists.consumersinternational.org; ip-dev at cis-india.org; ip-teaching-india at googlegroups.com Subject: [A2k] Global Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age Dear Colleagues Sincerest apologies for cross posting. I wanted to bring to your attention the Hague Declaration On Knoweldge Discovery in the Digital Age as a member of LIBER ((Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche) and the Copyright, Legal and Other Matters Committee of the International Federation of Library Associations. As the massive potential of Big Data, and all other forms of data have become clear we have seen a rise in litigation to protect smaller and smaller amounts of knowledge. Over the past 10 years we have seen litigation, particularly from the newspaper industry, around the reuse of a few words from newspaper articles, or a newspaper title. We have similarly seen court cases around whether copyright pertains to a url. In 2013 we saw the European Commission organise workshops on Text and Data Mining / Big Data to discuss not limitations and exceptions, but more licences for being able to extract facts and data from materials users of copyright already had legal access to already. The point of the Hague Declaration is to protect the building blocks of knowledge – facts - from the reach of intellectual property. This is important because in order to exploit Big Data, computers must copy and synthesise the text / data, within which the facts you want to discover are sitting. This means that it is regulated by copyright law, or if in the EU database rights also. The medical, social and economic potential of this technology is hugely transformative. I would invite your organisations to read and potentially sign. Signatories will agree to share and work towards the key vision of the Declaration, which calls for changes to intellectual property (IP) law and the removal of other barriers currently preventing widened and more equal access to Big Data. IP law was not designed to regulate the free flow of facts, data and ideas, nor should it. http://thehaguedeclaration.com/the-hague-declaration-on-knowledge-discovery-in-the-digital-age/ Kind regards Ben White IFLA / LIBER P.S. This article on Ebola from the Liberian Minister of Health shows how undiscovered public knowledge decades old, that sits within medical journals in the West, could have been easily mined to show that Ebola was historically present in Liberia although no health official there knew it when facing the current crisis. ****************************************************************************************************************** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled ***************************************************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmaster at bl.uk : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. ***************************************************************************************************************** Think before you print _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org From geetha at cis-india.org Fri May 15 05:50:33 2015 From: geetha at cis-india.org (Geetha Hariharan) Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:20:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5555C169.7000309@cis-india.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest. Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think might be interested. Best, Geetha. - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Swaraj Barooah Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 Dear all, We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting applications to participate in the Congress, including session participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for panels and workshops. The application form is available now at [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress. Deadlines August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form). November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper submissions will close on November 1st. Application Information For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in the form. For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or any other relevant information provided by the applicant. Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing countries. Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property policy can best serve the public interest. The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity. The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects of IP policy and practice. Participation Opportunities Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, cross-track sessions and the room of scholars. The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual interest. The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress . Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the aforementioned sessions. The application form for participation is available now athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com . Organisation The Centre for Internet and Society serves as the convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University, Delhi . The implementing partners arethe American Assembly at Columbia University in New York,Open A.I.R ., and theProgram on Information Justice and Intellectual Property at American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC. On behalf of the organizing committee, Swaraj Barooah Swaraj Paul Barooah Project Manager, "Global Congress" (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015) Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com Founder, Know-GAP Twitter: @swarajpb - -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJVVcFpAAoJENMCY59StgV56rMIAIslFToAvvsQGyZzhrYkg2lS E4mBkbAep89F7tPds/whZk5STXvhchFylKBkA2PjqqB1l/YzhrL3A+nXDdMNfDl4 RhE88ssEGcFNNq7J3+4e6MtKYunwAWB0GOaOX6B1Oz3OXa4j53Pcr3x503F08dvy w3eGhtb/nCqE6Bhpa+fr6SulbcHhF6JUPSEqonM6leX8I9J92aFsbAYSoJ9HaZUE daqOwvVDYRN9nbgTjN39QGCcp6FWkZxBuK8SsQgouyGpNekTu8zlHet8v+UOefYY 26hXr/4rONsbcNiGmE9h4cCya5yq5auQtQrVW52/cYoOJRO4PAp2D3ZP0BE/e8M= =9eW6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Participation- Global Congress 2015-(Revised).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 158239 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nehaa at cis-india.org Fri May 15 03:38:05 2015 From: nehaa at cis-india.org (Nehaa Chaudhari) Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 13:08:05 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [Revised] - Global Congress IV - Call for Participation In-Reply-To: <5555A18C.8030404@cis-india.org> References: <5555A18C.8030404@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <5555A25D.3020806@cis-india.org> [Apologies for the repeated emails, and cross posting]. Hi everyone, Please find attached the Call for Participation for the 4th Global Congress on IP and Public Interest to be held in New Delhi, later this year. There were some errors in formatting in the earlier document, this is a cleaned up version. Many apologies for this. Please consider this revised version instead. Many thanks! Nehaa -- Nehaa Chaudhari The Centre for Internet and Society G-15, Top Floor Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110016 India. Ph: +91 11 4050 3285 Fax: +91 80 2535 0955 -- Nehaa Chaudhari The Centre for Internet and Society G-15, Top Floor Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110016 India. Ph: +91 11 4050 3285 Fax: +91 80 2535 0955 -- Nehaa Chaudhari The Centre for Internet and Society G-15, Top Floor Hauz Khas New Delhi - 110016 India. Ph: +91 11 4050 3285 Fax: +91 80 2535 0955 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Participation- Global Congress 2015-(Revised).pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 158239 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steve at openmedia.ca Fri May 15 21:57:46 2015 From: steve at openmedia.ca (Steve Anderson) Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 18:57:46 -0700 Subject: [bestbits] The No Fake (Facebook) Internet Campaign Message-ID: Hi all, we've put up a platform so that Internet users around the world can speak out against Zuckerberg's Fake Internet service: https://nofakeinternet.org/ We've been hearing a lot of concern from our members and wanted to provide a place for them to speak out and for a hub to find background materials. We'll link to and hopefully help publicize the more detailed letter Access has been circulating once it's public. We did more consultation with supporters/users then usual for this campaign, but happy to have feedback or hear about other materials we should consider adding to the platform. The feedback has been the most supportive, I guess unsurprisingly, in India. If you or your organization would like help mobilize Internet users around this issue please sign up here : https://openmedia.org/fakeinternet/join Please share the platform with your networks including on Facebook itself. Thanks! -- *Steve Anderson* Executive Director, OpenMedia.ca 604-837-5730 http://openmedia.ca steve at openmedia.ca Follow me on Twitter Friend me on Facebook * *Let's have access to affordable phone and Internet rates. * **Do you think we deserve a fair deal in our digital future? -->> OurFairDeal.org * *Confidentiality Warning:* * This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Thank you.Information confidentielle:** Le présent message, ainsi que tout fichier qui y est joint, est envoyé à l'intention exclusive de son ou de ses destinataires; il est de nature confidentielle et peut constituer une information privilégiée. Nous avertissons toute personne autre que le destinataire prévu que tout examen, réacheminement, impression, copie, distribution ou autre utilisation de ce message et de tout fichier qui y est joint est strictement interdit. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire prévu, veuillez en aviser immédiatement l'expéditeur par retour de courriel et supprimer ce message et tout document joint de votre système. Merci.* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gurstein at gmail.com Sun May 17 01:56:54 2015 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 06:56:54 +0100 Subject: [bestbits] [ogp] RE: [A2k] Global Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age In-Reply-To: References: <120234CBAF61D14E80E1F5DAB85E620C548D5940@V8L-EXCHANGE02.ad.bl.uk> <014801d08e35$c7674870$5635d950$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01c401d09066$49c055f0$dd4101d0$@gmail.com> Thanks for this Denis, (and copying this to some of those on the original cc: list… So then perhaps someone could explain to me why all of these organizations, most of which appear quite reputable are “carrying water” i.e. doing the lobbying work, for Google, Facebook et al. Presumably Google et al have the budgets to do their own lobbying without the intervention of Civil Society or am I still missing something? Since we are being asked to sign on to this letter presumably an explanation is in order. (And as a slight aside and following Bakan’s talk as pointed to below, presumably the Civil Society position should be one which is concerned with democratizing access to and control over knowledge and, and not simply “eliminating barriers” as per the statement. As you indicate this elimination of barriers will simply extend the power and control of those organizations such as Google, Facebook et al which have the capacity and resources to undertake this type of “knowledge discovery”, further empowering (and enriching) the already empowered (and outrageously wealthy). Mike From: ogp at dgroups.org [mailto:ogp at dgroups.org] On Behalf Of Denis Parfenov Sent: May 15, 2015 6:21 PM To: OGP Civil Society group Cc: OGP Civil Society group Subject: [ogp] RE: [A2k] Global Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age Hi Michael and all- perhaps someone could explain to me how this approach furthers the public interest To be real, it will not further the public interest. Even if data is freely available for content mining, apart from a tiny-tiny fraction of activists, the general public has neither skills, nor time, nor energy, nor interest in spending evenings and/or weekends on cracking numbers for the common good. On the other hand, Google, FB, Twitter et al. (whose business model is based on offering "free" services, in exchange of our personal data), have no lack of financial and human resources to make the most of our personal data for increasing shareholder values and "helping" NSA/GCHQ etc. to spy on us all the way. I suggest you to watch a recent talk by Aral Balkan on this matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jh8supIUj6c Best regards, Denis -- Denis Parfenov Open Knowledge Ambassador / Open Knowledge Ireland, Founder https://openknowledge.ie/ | @OKFirl | Google+ 'Open minds to open actions' On 14 May 2015 at 12:05, Michael Gurstein > wrote: Ben, Maybe I’m not reading this correctly, and certainly there is a very sympathetic group of supporters but what I see is a statement which makes the world (legally) safe for (Big) data mining (which is at the moment as you know an anticipated gold mine for major corporations) with only some minor hand waves in the direction of the public interest whether through researchers, libraries or whatever. The document gives some useful (and IMHO appropriate) critiques of IPR’s but seems to stop there midway. Simply removing IPR restrictions on “Big Data”/data mining makes the world safe for Google et al without doing a fig for the rest of us I think. This isn't my area so perhaps I'm misreading but perhaps someone could explain to me how this approach furthers the public interest beyond what is already being widely articulated concerning the knowledge restrictive role of IPR's. If, as this document appears to intend, the effort is directed toward those concerned with the use of Big Data perhaps there could/should have been something more specific and direct concerning how to ensure that Big Data/data mining initiatives/activities are governed in the public interest; are available to be developed by those promoting the public interest; and are realized in full cognizance of the privacy, control and centralization impacts of Big Data initiatives and activities. M -----Original Message----- From: A2k [mailto:a2k-bounces at lists.keionline.org ] On Behalf Of White, Ben Sent: May 14, 2015 9:54 AM To: Nehaa Chaudhari; sccrs at infoserv.inist.fr ; a2k at lists.keionline.org ; ip-health at lists.keionline.org ; ogp at dgroups.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net ; asia-commons at googlegroup.com ; discuss at 1net.org ; cc-affiliates at lists.ibiblio.org ; commons-law at sarai.net ; copysouth at copysouth.org ; digitalconsumers at lists.consumersinternational.org ; ip-dev at cis-india.org ; ip-teaching-india at googlegroups.com Subject: [A2k] Global Declaration on Knowledge Discovery in the Digital Age Dear Colleagues Sincerest apologies for cross posting. I wanted to bring to your attention the Hague Declaration On Knoweldge Discovery in the Digital Age as a member of LIBER ((Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherche) and the Copyright, Legal and Other Matters Committee of the International Federation of Library Associations. As the massive potential of Big Data, and all other forms of data have become clear we have seen a rise in litigation to protect smaller and smaller amounts of knowledge. Over the past 10 years we have seen litigation, particularly from the newspaper industry, around the reuse of a few words from newspaper articles, or a newspaper title. We have similarly seen court cases around whether copyright pertains to a url. In 2013 we saw the European Commission organise workshops on Text and Data Mining / Big Data to discuss not limitations and exceptions, but more licences for being able to extract facts and data from materials users of copyright already had legal access to already. The point of the Hague Declaration is to protect the building blocks of knowledge – facts - from the reach of intellectual property. This is important because in order to exploit Big Data, computers must copy and synthesise the text / data, within which the facts you want to discover are sitting. This means that it is regulated by copyright law, or if in the EU database rights also. The medical, social and economic potential of this technology is hugely transformative. I would invite your organisations to read and potentially sign. Signatories will agree to share and work towards the key vision of the Declaration, which calls for changes to intellectual property (IP) law and the removal of other barriers currently preventing widened and more equal access to Big Data. IP law was not designed to regulate the free flow of facts, data and ideas, nor should it. http://thehaguedeclaration.com/the-hague-declaration-on-knowledge-discovery-in-the-digital-age/ Kind regards Ben White IFLA / LIBER P.S. This article on Ebola from the Liberian Minister of Health shows how undiscovered public knowledge decades old, that sits within medical journals in the West, could have been easily mined to show that Ebola was historically present in Liberia although no health official there knew it when facing the current crisis. ****************************************************************************************************************** Experience the British Library online at www.bl.uk The British Library’s latest Annual Report and Accounts : www.bl.uk/aboutus/annrep/index.html Help the British Library conserve the world's knowledge. Adopt a Book. www.bl.uk/adoptabook The Library's St Pancras site is WiFi - enabled ***************************************************************************************************************** The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this e-mail and notify the postmaster at bl.uk > : The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed or copied without the sender's consent. The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the British Library. The British Library does not take any responsibility for the views of the author. ***************************************************************************************************************** Think before you print _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.keionline.org http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org __________ You are receiving this message because you're a member of the community OGP Civil Society group. View this contribution on the web site https://dgroups.org/_/2d2k1dl0 A reply to this message will be sent ONLY to gurstein at gmail.com . To reply to all members of OGP Civil Society group, send a message to ogp at dgroups.org . To unsubscribe, send an email to leave.ogp at dgroups.org -- m: +353863850044 | http://twitter.com/prfnv/ | http://prfnv.org/ You are receiving this message because you are a member of the community OGP Civil Society group . View this contribution on the web site A reply to this message will be sent ONLY to the sender; it will NOT be archived on the web site. Reply to all community members | Unsubscribe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 538 bytes Desc: not available URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 17 09:46:56 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 19:16:56 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual Property and the Public Interest' ! Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder Interest' ? You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish. The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted. So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political evolution over it! Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a silent or active accomplices. Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets admit it, such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history. Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'. Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr congress. In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may be interested. parminder On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote: > PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual > Property and Public Interest. > > Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think > might be interested. > > Best, > Geetha. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Swaraj Barooah > Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM > Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual > Property and the Public Interest, 2015 > > Dear all, > > We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth > edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public > Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be > “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting > applications to participate in the Congress, including session > participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for > panels and workshops. > > The application form is available now at > [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this > form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of > participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are > open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress. > > Deadlines > > August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be > considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st > being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to > receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional > circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form). > > November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper > submissions will close on November 1st. > > Application Information > > For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host > workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in > the form. > > For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as > discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or > any other relevant information provided by the applicant. > > Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the > Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing > countries. > > Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes > > The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is > the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy > advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest > perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of > experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to > put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress > began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and > was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be > held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest > convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property > practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most > populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property > policy can best serve the public interest. > > The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil > society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together > for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual > property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but > valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. > The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in > New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity. > > The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two > Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and > further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce > three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research > directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and > policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; > second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local > research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; > and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and > global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects > of IP policy and practice. > > Participation Opportunities > > Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of > plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of > scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, > cross-track sessions and the room of scholars. > > The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access > to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. > > Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in > order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual > interest. > > The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such > as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the > thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress > . > > Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference > papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share > their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the > aforementioned sessions. > > The application form for participation is available now > athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this > invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or > questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com > . > > Organisation > > The Centre for Internet and Society serves as the > convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and > Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University, > Delhi . > > The implementing partners arethe American > Assembly at Columbia University in New > York,Open A.I.R ., and theProgram on > Information Justice and Intellectual Property at > American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC. > > > On behalf of the organizing committee, > > Swaraj Barooah > > Swaraj Paul Barooah > Project Manager, "Global Congress" > (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015) > > Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com > Founder, Know-GAP > Twitter: @swarajpb > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun May 17 14:04:03 2015 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 14:04:03 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That’s easy." Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone *doesn't* know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder" seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word - 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.' (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll / http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php) I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used. Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does "multistakeholderism"? Best wishes Deirdre On 17 May 2015 at 11:13, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process > do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the > idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political > evolution over it! > > What a curious (mis)reading. > > First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of > “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not want > to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE. > > Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic concept > that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to discuss it > before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. > That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss it as a panel if you wish. > > It would of course have to be next year. > > But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not > because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > From: Parminder Singh > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > Parminder Singh > Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , > BestBitsList , "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on > Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 > > Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual > Property and the Public Interest' ! > > Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder > Interest' ? > > You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, head > of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly argued that > public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but multistakeholder > perspective or interest is much easier to establish. > > The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for the > AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal must > incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it be > replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted. So, in > fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to > think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of > 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political > evolution over it! > > Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it is my > duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area are either a > silent or active accomplices. > > Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike > intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and > therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets admit it, such > an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be misled by it - > the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom up, private, etc that > the social relationships of trade and property, whose governance continue > to be done in democratic fashions... Time we claimed democratic governance > for the Internet as well, and rubbish the post-democratic > multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly taking root in this space, > for which the IG civil society will have to answer to history. > > Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public > interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for the > big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What really is > the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG space has been > captured by powerful forces before public interest actors could assert > themselves. Civil society in this area must help in re-democraticing this > area, and reclaiming 'public interest'. > > Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr > congress. > > In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress on > 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those who may > be interested. > > parminder > > On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote: > > PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual > Property and Public Interest. > > Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think > might be interested. > > Best, > Geetha. > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Swaraj Barooah > Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM > Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual > Property and the Public Interest, 2015 > > Dear all, > > We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth > edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public > Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be > “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting > applications to participate in the Congress, including session > participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for > panels and workshops. > > The application form is available now at > [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this > form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of > participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are > open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress. > > Deadlines > > August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be > considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st > being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to > receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional > circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form). > > November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper > submissions will close on November 1st. > > Application Information > > For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host > workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in > the form. > > For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as > discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or > any other relevant information provided by the applicant. > > Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the > Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing > countries. > > Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes > > The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is > the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy > advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest > perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of > experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to > put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress > began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and > was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be > held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest > convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property > practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most > populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property > policy can best serve the public interest. > > The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil > society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together > for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual > property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but > valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. > The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in > New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity. > > The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two > Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and > further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce > three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research > directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and > policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; > second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local > research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; > and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and > global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects > of IP policy and practice. > > Participation Opportunities > > Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of > plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of > scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, > cross-track sessions and the room of scholars. > > The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access > to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. > > Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in > order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual > interest. > > The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such > as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the > thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress > . > > Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference > papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share > their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the > aforementioned sessions. > > The application form for participation is available now > athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this > invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or > questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com > . > > Organisation > > The Centre for Internet and Society > serves as the > convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and > Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University, > Delhi . > > The implementing partners arethe > American > Assembly at > Columbia University in New > York,Open A.I.R ., > and theProgram on > Information Justice and Intellectual Property > at > American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC. > > > On behalf of the organizing committee, > > Swaraj Barooah > > Swaraj Paul Barooah > Project Manager, "Global Congress" > (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015) > > Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com > Founder, Know-GAP > Twitter: @swarajpb > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > [image: SG50] > ------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named and > may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or disclose > its contents. > Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pouzin at well.com Sun May 17 15:48:32 2015 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 21:48:32 +0200 Subject: [bestbits] [JNC - Forum] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is. That's easy." > > Respectfully, (I'm making a comment/asking for clarification, not trying > to pick a quarrel), I have the impression that the problem is that everyone > *doesn't* know, or rather that everyone doesn't agree. "Multistakeholder" > seems to me to have become a "Humpty Dumpty" word - > 'When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it > means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' > (from Alice Through the Looking Glass/Lewis Carroll / > http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php) > I've begun to record, for my own benefit, when how and where the term is > used, and to notice those contexts in which it is not used. > Does "multistakeholder" now have a stable definition? Does > "multistakeholderism"? > Best wishes > Deirdre > > The most stable definition: *Fig leaf for US dominance* . Louis - - - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 17 23:07:33 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:37:33 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55595775.8050901@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:43 PM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > > >So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process do seem to think > that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and the idea of > 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive political > evolution over it! > > What a curious (mis)reading. Rather more curious, Dear Peng Hwa, is that after you call my reading curious you repeat exactly what I have read. Direct quotes from your below email: "public interest is a problematic concept" AND "Everyone knows what multistakeholder is". Whereby, I understand you justify why the APrIGF call uses 'multistakeholder perspective' and did not agree to use 'public interest'. I dont see what or where I mis-read.. parminder > > First of all, I do not see how the APrIGF can be representative of > “dominant groups”. We are, at best/worst an n of 1. Nah, I would not > want to be one of the MASTERS of the UNIVERSE. > > Second, it is precisely because public interest is a problematic > concept that the APrIGF is not using that notion. We have no time to > discuss it before we roll out the meeting. Everyone knows what > multistakeholder is. That’s easy. But public interest—we could discuss > it as a panel if you wish. > > It would of course have to be next year. > > But if I say that it is next year, it is because of the deadline. Not > because, once again, that public interest is not a problematic conception. > > Regards, > Peng Hwa > > From: Parminder Singh > > Reply-To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, Parminder Singh > > > Date: Sunday, 17 May 2015 9:46 pm > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org > " >, BestBitsList > >, > "Forum at Justnetcoalition. Org" > > Subject: Re: [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on > Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 > > Interesting theme of this series of global congresses: 'Intellectual > Property and the Public Interest' ! > > Wonder if you ever thought of calling it "IP and the multistakeholder > Interest' ? > > You all have have seen the discussion I recently had with Peng Hwa, > head of the AP regional IGF process for many years, who strongly > argued that public interest perspective is a very unclear concept but > multistakeholder perspective or interest is much easier to establish. > > The discussion started when I objected to the call for workshops for > the AP regional IGF which was categorical that every workshop proposal > must incorporate a 'multistakeholder perspective'. I suggested that it > be replaced by 'public interest'. This suggestion was not accepted. > So, in fact, indeed the dominant groups involved with the IGF process > do seem to think that 'public interest' is a problematic concept, and > the idea of 'multistakeholder perspective' or interest is a positive > political evolution over it! > > Friends, these are serious post-democratic developments to which, it > is my duty of observe, most of the civil society involved in IG area > are either a silent or active accomplices. > > Meanwhile, of course, I wait for arguments that Internet ( unlike > intellectual property!?) is a bottom up , private, etc etc, thing, and > therefore its governance has to be different.... Well, lets admit it, > such an arugment really does not hold unless we are intent to be > misled by it - the social artefact of the Internet is no more bottom > up, private, etc that the social relationships of trade and property, > whose governance continue to be done in democratic fashions... Time we > claimed democratic governance for the Internet as well, and rubbish > the post-democratic multistakeholderist ideas that are so solidly > taking root in this space, for which the IG civil society will have to > answer to history. > > Would anyone agree that the proposed global congress on IP and public > interest to be held in a 'multistakeholder' way, with equal space for > the big IP holders, as one always insists for an IG meeting... What > really is the difference, other than that the discourse in the IG > space has been captured by powerful forces before public interest > actors could assert themselves. Civil society in this area must help > in re-democraticing this area, and reclaiming 'public interest'. > > Meanwhile, my best wishes to the the organisers of this very importanr > congress. > > In fact some of us have been talking about holding a global congress > on 'Internet governance and public interest'. Happy to talk to those > who may be interested. > > parminder > > On Friday 15 May 2015 03:21 PM, Geetha Hariharan wrote: >> PFA the call for participation for the Global Congress on Intellectual >> Property and Public Interest. >> >> Apologies for cross-posting. Please do circulate to anyone you think >> might be interested. >> >> Best, >> Geetha. >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Swaraj Barooah >> Date: Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:05 PM >> Subject: Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual >> Property and the Public Interest, 2015 >> >> Dear all, >> >> We are pleased to announce the call for participation for the fourth >> edition of the Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public >> Interest (“Global Congress”). The theme for this year’s Congress will be >> “Three Decades of Openness; Two Decades of TRIPS.” We are now inviting >> applications to participate in the Congress, including session >> participation and presentations. We are also welcoming proposals for >> panels and workshops. >> >> The application form is available now at >> [http://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?] Please note that this >> form is for application purposes, and does not amount to confirmation of >> participation. The registrations for the plenary sessions, which are >> open to the public, will open closer to the date of the Global Congress. >> >> Deadlines >> >> August 1st: Priority Deadline for Applications- Applicants will be >> considered on a rolling basis, with applications made by August 1st >> being given first consideration. Applications after August 1st to >> receive travel assistance will be considered only under exceptional >> circumstances (these details will be collected in a subsequent form). >> >> November 1st: All applications for session participation and paper >> submissions will close on November 1st. >> >> Application Information >> >> For applications to participate/host: Applications to present or host >> workshops shall be considered based on the proposals to be submitted in >> the form. >> >> For applications to attend sessions:Applications to attend sessions as >> discussants will be considered based on the statement of purpose and/or >> any other relevant information provided by the applicant. >> >> Limited travel grants to cover accommodation and/or travel to the >> Congress will be available, with priority to those from developing >> countries. >> >> Background, Theme and Expected Outcomes >> >> The Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest is >> the most significant event on the calendar for scholars and policy >> advocates working on intellectual property from a public interest >> perspective. By sharing their research and strategies, the network of >> experts and activists supported by the Global Congress are empowered to >> put forward a positive agenda for policy reform. The Global Congress >> began in Washington D.C. in 2011, moved to Rio de Janeiro in 2012, and >> was held in Cape Town in 2013. The fourth Global Congress will now be >> held in New Delhi, in December 2015. The event would be the largest >> convening of public interest-oriented intellectual property >> practitioners ever held in Asia, and would help link in the world's most >> populous region to these global debates around how intellectual property >> policy can best serve the public interest. >> >> The fourth edition of the Global Congress, which brings research, civil >> society, industry and regulatory and policy-making communities together >> for active, intense engagement on key public-interest intellectual >> property issues. Opportunities for these groups to interact are rare but >> valuable; and have been proven to lead to successful policy outcomes. >> The 4thedition of the Congress, slated to be held in December, 2015 in >> New Delhi seeks to be one such opportunity. >> >> The theme for the 2015 Congress is Three Decades of Openness; Two >> Decades of TRIPS-coming at a pivotal time for reflection, revision, and >> further strategizing. Specifically, the 2015 Congress seeks to produce >> three outcomes- first, the mobilization of existing scholarly research >> directly into the hands of civil society advocates, business leaders and >> policy makers, leading to evidence-based policies and practices; >> second,the collaborative identification of urgent, global and local >> research priorities and generation of a joint research/advocacy agenda; >> and third, the solidification of an inter-disciplinary, cross-sector and >> global networked community of experts focused on public interest aspects >> of IP policy and practice. >> >> Participation Opportunities >> >> Discussions at the Global Congress will be carried out in the form of >> plenary sessions, thematic tracks, cross-track sessions, and the room of >> scholars. Participation is invited for the thematic track sessions, >> cross-track sessions and the room of scholars. >> >> The thematic tracks at the Global Congress are: 1) Openness, 2) Access >> to Medicines, 3) User Rights, 4) IP and Development. >> >> Cross-track sessions will feature research that cuts across tracks in >> order to facilitate engagement between tracks on themes of mutual >> interest. >> >> The Room of Scholars will feature presentations of research outputs such >> as draft works or white papers that may not fit directly within the >> thematic tracks but fall within the overall theme of the Global Congress >> . >> >> Participation could be in the form of presenting / discussing conference >> papers or policy briefs, or by conducting workshops where they may share >> their own work and solicit feedback from peers, during the >> aforementioned sessions. >> >> The application form for participation is available now >> athttp://form.jotformpro.com/form/50854976184973?. Please forward this >> invitation to interested lists and individuals. For more information or >> questions, you may contact globalcongress2015 at gmail.com >> . >> >> Organisation >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society serves as the >> convenor of the fourth Global Congress on Intellectual Property and >> Public Interest, carried out in cooperation withNational Law University, >> Delhi . >> >> The implementing partners arethe American >> Assembly at Columbia University in New >> York,Open A.I.R ., and theProgram on >> Information Justice and Intellectual Property at >> American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC. >> >> >> On behalf of the organizing committee, >> >> Swaraj Barooah >> >> Swaraj Paul Barooah >> Project Manager, "Global Congress" >> (Global Congress on IP and the Public Interest, 2015) >> >> Editor-in-Chief, SpicyIP.com >> Founder, Know-GAP >> Twitter: @swarajpb >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > To be removed from the list, visit: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > > > For all other list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > SG50 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > CONFIDENTIALITY: This email is intended solely for the person(s) named > and may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please delete it, notify us and do not copy, use, or > disclose its contents. > Towards a sustainable earth: Print only when necessary. Thank you. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From seth.p.johnson at gmail.com Tue May 5 14:19:52 2015 From: seth.p.johnson at gmail.com (Seth Johnson) Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 14:19:52 -0400 Subject: [bestbits] =?UTF-8?Q?Facebook=E2=80=99s_Internet=2Eorg_Isn?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99t_the_Internet=2C_It=E2=80=99s_Facebooknet?= Message-ID: Just gets a lot right: Facebook’s Internet.org Isn’t the Internet, It’s Facebooknet http://www.wired.com/2015/05/opinion-internet-org-facebooknet/ Seth From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 17 23:18:19 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:48:19 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <555959FB.9090403@itforchange.net> On Sunday 17 May 2015 08:55 PM, McTim wrote: > snip > The simplest argument is that it HAS been bottom up, open, > transparent, consensus based decision making, etc for the last 40 > years. So it IS and HAS BEEN different since inception, and has been > VERY successful. For more that 4000 years trade has been based on rules that were developed mutually among trade guilds, in a rather bottom up and consensual, and, among them, open and transparent ways ..... That did not stop trade (or property) from currently being governed by democratic, national and global, means, and I hear no argument that trade and property be governed by multistakeholder means. (Although I know, as multistakeholder-ism makes progress in the IG space, such proposals will surface. That is the plan.) The argument you give is part of a pack of make-believes that is bandied around - included through numerous well -funded 'capacity building' and such initiatives financed by the powerful - to give respectability to a model that serves the powerful and the status quo. As you can see above there is no basis of Internet exceptionalism of the kind you argue... parminder From parminder at itforchange.net Sun May 17 23:28:02 2015 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 08:58:02 +0530 Subject: [bestbits] [governance] Call for Participation: Global Congress on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest, 2015 In-Reply-To: References: <5555A417.5000103@cis-india.org> <5555C192.3060305@cis-india.org> <55589BD0.2030707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <55595C42.9050706@itforchange.net> Peng Hwa Since you seem to rely on wikipedia, before declaring that although 'everyone knows what knows what multi stakeholder is' 'public interest is a problematic concept' (both direct quotes from your email) did you look up 'public interest' in wikipedia? Well, here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_interest A comparative assessment of the two entries in wikipedia - respectively on MSism (multistakeholderism) and public interest - would make clear which one is clearer and less contested term. Which in turn clearly proves that an assertion in favour of 'clarity' of the MS term with respect to the 'public interest' term is not based on any kind of facts or on existing body of civilisational knoweldge . It is merely ideological, which was my prior point. And the fact that a regional IGF process takes such a bias as a given - and does not correct itself even when the 'error' is pointed out - makes a important political point, which is the political point that I have been trying to make.. parminder On Monday 18 May 2015 06:45 AM, Ang Peng Hwa (Prof) wrote: > Deirdre, > > Google > multistakeholder.https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=multistakeholder&oq=multistakeholder&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3j69i65l2.2580j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8 > > The first entry is a Wiki where Norbert Bellow is quoted and where he > distinguishes between types even. > > The second entry is a glossary entry from APC. > > The third entry is an ICANNWiki entry. > > Like many words, there is a “core” meaning and moving beyond that, > more than 50 shades of greying that keeps academics employed. > > Regards, > Ang Peng Hwa > > From: Williams Deirde > > Date: Monday, 18 May 2015 2:04 am > To: Internet Governance