<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>In the interest of moving forward in a concerted but not confused way, I think it might be worthwhile starting a separate list focused on solely this issue such that relevant and interested people from the three coalitions can participate and then report back to their respective coalitions as necessary. The crossposting is getting very difficult and confusing and somewhat unnecessary especially considering how many of us are in all three groups. What do people think?<br><br>Sent via mobile</div><div><br>On Jun 13, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Anne Jellema <<a href="mailto:anne@webfoundation.org">anne@webfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr">Picking up on the earlier comments from Parminder et al re corporate culpability: I support these points. I think that beyond this letter, we should consider a separate consumer-driven action that directly targets one or more of the companies that have given into the NSA. Such an action could be hugely successful, especially if we can keep the ask simple so that ordinary facebook, skype (microsoft) or google users can easily understand it. <div>
<br></div><div>In general, seems to me that with both the HRC statement and this letter under our belts (and huge congrats and thanks to everyone for getting that done so fast], we need to start mapping a slightly longer term game plan for the next few months. There is lobby work to be done on getting the HRC to act on our demands to them; we should continue to offer global solidarity to the <a href="http://stopwatching.us" target="_blank">stopwatching.us</a> campaign where it can be effective in increasing that campaign's chances of success domestically; there may be other domestic campaigns emerging in other countries affected by govt complicity with US surveillance that we should support; and as mentioned above we might want to plan a consumer-facing action at some point in the near future, or work together to take on other targets that seem strategic. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Who will be in Tunis to strategise this weekend?</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div>Anne<br><div><div style="width:1600.0001220703125px"><div><div><div>
<div style="width:1380px"><div><div><div><div><div style="min-height:657px"><div style="min-height:466.6840362548828px"><div><div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all<br>
<br>
Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a<br>
while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC<br>
time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we<br>
would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday<br>
so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday<br>
morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to<br>
have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on.<br>
<br>
Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you<br>
have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts<br>
his day tomorrow?<br>
<span><font color="#888888"><br>
Anriette<br>
</font></span><div><div><br>
<br>
On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
> Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop)<br>
><br>
> I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons<br>
> to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of<br>
> organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for<br>
> Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also<br>
> seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet.<br>
> I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the<br>
> handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT,<br>
> HRW... correct?<br>
><br>
> For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here" target="_blank">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here</a><br>
><br>
> Discussion of the contents is taking place on <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net" target="_blank">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
><br>
> I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the<br>
> final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote:<br>
>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens.<br>
>><br>
>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.<br>
>><br>
>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost<br>
>> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native<br>
>> english speaker take the lead on the final round.<br>
>><br>
>> Carol<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder<br>
> <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net" target="_blank">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>wrote:<br>
>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the<br>
>>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has<br>
> not at<br>
>>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a<br>
>>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to<br>
>>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures'<br>
>>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access<br>
>>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their<br>
>>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the<br>
>>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens,<br>
> which is<br>
>>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on<br>
>>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an<br>
>>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very<br>
>>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must<br>
> refrain<br>
>>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The<br>
>>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take<br>
> note of<br>
>>> this. "<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I<br>
>>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them<br>
>>> separately, through a possible second statement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite<br>
>>> right.<br>
>>><br>
>>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of<br>
>>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the<br>
>>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental<br>
>>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern<br>
> societies**.*[3] and<br>
>>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep<br>
>>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by<br>
>>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."<br>
>>><br>
>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'?