<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I am still getting up to speed this morning on how the drafting is going; Anja’s points below following others about needing to be clear that including a comment
on whistleblowers and also being sure to address the US congress in such a way that makes sense to that audience (which is Kevin’s point if I remember many responses back!) need not adopt a position that underscores a US-centric understanding.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As this issue emanates from the US, addressing US representatives is primary. But as Anja notes, internet freedom is not only a US prerogative.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Looking forward to the final ‘clean’ version so that IRP coalition members can confer and sign up if this is the decision.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thanks all again for the work!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">MF<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request@lists.bestbits.net]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Anja Kovacs<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 12 June 2013 18:06<br>
<b>To:</b> Kevin Bankston<br>
<b>Cc:</b> anriette@apc.org; bestbits@lists.bestbits.net><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I agree with Joana and Anriette that a reference to at least our own concern and support for whistleblowers should stay in. Unless we want to write a whole separate statement on that (which is perhaps worth
considering, seeing the USA's recent record on this count).<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">I also support the changes suggested by Joana which ensure we do no longer address the USA as a "global leader on Internet freedom" while still pointing out how the USA is hurting its own credibility with these
revelations. Neither do I consider the USA a leader in this field, nor does the Internet Democracy Project associate with the term "Internet freedom" to describe its field of work - and I think we might not be alone in this.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Many thanks to all who have been working on this.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Best,<br>
Anja<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 12 June 2013 22:20, Kevin Bankston <<a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org" target="_blank">kbankston@cdt.org</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I'm afraid not<br>
<br>
Sent via mobile<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br>
On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen <<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Replying only to BestBits... the multiple messages are driving me round<br>
> the bend.<br>
><br>
> I support Joana on this, but understand the strategic considerations to.<br>
><br>
> Is there any protection for whistleblowers in the US we can make<br>
> reference to in this last paragraph? So that we can say that 'such<br>
> protection should apply to whistleblowers in this case'?<br>
><br>
> anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
> On 12/06/2013 18:22, Joana Varon wrote:<br>
>> I'm ok if we take the paragraph that Kevin and Carol mentioned out and<br>
>> leave the last part of the final paragraph:<br>
>><br>
>> "We further call on the United States Congress to protect the<br>
>> whistleblowers involved in this case and support their efforts to combat<br>
>> these kinds of mass violations of the fundamental human rights of American<br>
>> and foreign citizens.[9]"<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Joana Varon <<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> "So we need others to protect him from US.."<br>
>>><br>
>>> then, as International community, we need the US to know we support his<br>
>>> protection, isnt it?<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Carolina Rossini <<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Joana, I agree with Kevin on this. We need action of the international<br>
>>>> community to protect whistleblowers when they break a law in a certain<br>
>>>> country when such action in favor of a bigger common good - and actually<br>
>>>> public interest.<br>
>>>> So we need others to protect him from US...I do not believe anything else<br>
>>>> would work in this case.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Bankston <<a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a>>wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Understood. But the audience has changed. There it was the HRC, where<br>
>>>>> your point might have purchase. But if we are here addressing US<br>
>>>>> policymakers, and we are, that's a context where even those who are<br>
>>>>> staunchly on our side on the substance have had to condemn what Snowden did<br>
>>>>> as a clear violation of the law.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> ____________________________________<br>
>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston<br>
>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director<br>
>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100<br>
>>>>> Washington, DC 20006<br>
>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct<br>
>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:02 PM, Joana Varon <<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> As I've mentioned in the document:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I believe it is very important to express our concerns about the future<br>
>>>>> of the whistleblowers in every single statement we make... I mean, the guy<br>
>>>>> is in huge trouble.. all the efforts are welcome and protecting him is also<br>
>>>>> part of our main points. That was expressed in a paragraph on our Statement<br>
>>>>> to HRC and there were a few organizations that signed our statement to<br>
>>>>> HCR particularly because we have mentioned this point.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Carolina Rossini <<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> + 1 on Kevin's comments<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Kevin Bankston <<a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a>>wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Sorry, used the old best bits list address, now using new one...<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Kevin<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:53 AM, Kevin Bankston <<a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure how bestbits fell out of this thread--I thought bestbists<br>
>>>>>>> was going to be the main channel for this discussion--so adding that list<br>
>>>>>>> back into cc.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> In addition to Carolina, I've also made some small tweaks and one big<br>
>>>>>>> comment.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> The tweaks:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 1) Changed "Some US-based Internet companies with global reach also<br>
>>>>>>> seem to be *complicit* in these practices" to "participating". I am<br>
>>>>>>> all for calling out "complicity" in cases like, e.g., AT&T's cooperation<br>
>>>>>>> with the Bush-era program that operated without court approval (for the<br>
>>>>>>> record, I'm one of the attorneys who brought cases against AT&T and the NSA<br>
>>>>>>> over that program, while I was at EFF). But as far as we know now the<br>
>>>>>>> companies participating currently are doing so under secret *order* of the<br>
>>>>>>> FISA court and even if they had attempted to challenge those orders we<br>
>>>>>>> would never know. So I'm less willing to tar with the "complicity" brush.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 2) Changed "Involved or affected companies *must* publish statistics"<br>
>>>>>>> to "must *be allowed to*" publish statistics. Right now they are forbidden<br>
>>>>>>> by law from doing so. So we should be asking USG to allow them to do so.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> The one big comment, seconding Carolina's: I think that the paragraph<br>
>>>>>>> focusing on whistleblowing is a politically dangerous distraction from the<br>
>>>>>>> main point. We had the same discussion in the stopwathing.uscoalition--many people wanted to focus on Snowden--but after a lot of<br>
>>>>>>> debate it was agreed that doing so would actually detract from what he is<br>
>>>>>>> trying to accomplish. I think the same is true here.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Thanks,<br>
>>>>>>> K<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> PS CDT will have a blog post up shortly praising the HRC statement and<br>
>>>>>>> the Larue report and highlighting for a US audience the global human rights<br>
>>>>>>> impact of this issue.<br>
>>>>>>> ____________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston<br>
>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director<br>
>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100<br>
>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006<br>
>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct<br>
>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 11:34 AM, Carolina Rossini <<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Hi all<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I just talked to Gene, and we have some new inputs. Edits on the<br>
>>>>>>> letter.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> C<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Joana Varon <<a href="mailto:joana@varonferraz.com">joana@varonferraz.com</a>>wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Hi folks,<br>
>>>>>>>> Great job! I'm adding some brackets.. if I might.<br>
>>>>>>>> Shall we be delivering this in Tunis, next week? During the Freedom<br>
>>>>>>>> Online Coalition meeting.<br>
>>>>>>>> best<br>
>>>>>>>> joana<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Carolina Rossini <<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Kevin,<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for your inputs. However, do you think there is space to<br>
>>>>>>>>> say - besides reforming such law - there was a overreaching of authority ?<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> C<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kevin Bankston <<a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a>>wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> questions.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how best to answer Andrew's questions; FISA is a<br>
>>>>>>>>>> complex law. And to be clear, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act was an<br>
>>>>>>>>>> amendment to FISA's provision for court orders for records; not a separate<br>
>>>>>>>>>> law. And the state secrets privilege is common law; there is no statute<br>
>>>>>>>>>> for it. But I'll do my best!<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> To read Andrew's question as narrowly as possible so that I can<br>
>>>>>>>>>> give a quick answer: In the context of foreign intelligence and terrorism<br>
>>>>>>>>>> investigations, FISA regulates surveillance conducted inside the United<br>
>>>>>>>>>> States, and acquisition of records from companies inside the United<br>
>>>>>>>>>> States, and surveillance outside of the United States to the extent it<br>
>>>>>>>>>> implicates United States person (i.e., citizens and naturalized permanent<br>
>>>>>>>>>> residents); there is also the National Security Letter authority which is<br>
>>>>>>>>>> an authority for the FBI to obtain records without going through the FISA<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Court.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> These authorities directly implicate the privacy of non-Americans<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to the extent that 1) non-Americans may reside in the US, 2) non-Americans<br>
>>>>>>>>>> communications will transit or be stored in facilities in the US, 3)<br>
>>>>>>>>>> records about non-Americans will be stored by companies in the US.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Finally, it also implicates the privacy of non-Americans to the extent<br>
>>>>>>>>>> that it does not at all regulate USG surveillance of non-Americans outside<br>
>>>>>>>>>> of America.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> FISA is at 18 USC 1801 et seq, in Chapter 36 of our US Code:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36" target="_blank">
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/chapter-36</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> In most relevant part, Subchapter I deals with individual wiretaps<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ("electronic surveillance"), II with secret physical searches, III with pen<br>
>>>>>>>>>> registers and trap and trace devices (i.e. surveillance of metadata), IV<br>
>>>>>>>>>> with records demands (now referred to as PATRIOT 215 orders since it was<br>
>>>>>>>>>> significantly amended by that section of PATRIOT). Meanwhile, Subchapter<br>
>>>>>>>>>> VI--added by the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) in 2008--provided the new and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> seriously problematic authority to obtain year long orders authorizing<br>
>>>>>>>>>> "programs" of non-individualized surveillance of communications where at<br>
>>>>>>>>>> least one party to the communication is outside of the country, while also<br>
>>>>>>>>>> allowing without any court authorization the interception of any<br>
>>>>>>>>>> foreign-to-foreign communications transiting the US; that is the authority<br>
>>>>>>>>>> under which PRISM is being used, as far as we best understand it.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore and to be absolutely clear: amendment to these laws--and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> especially a narrowing of the FAA--would SUBSTANTIALLY impact the privacy<br>
>>>>>>>>>> of every non-American who uses modern communications networks and services,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> especially those with facilities in the US. And the assistance of<br>
>>>>>>>>>> international civil society will be critical in any effort to accomplish<br>
>>>>>>>>>> such amendments. So--thank you all for what you've been doing!<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Kevin<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ____________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Kevin S. Bankston<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Washington, DC 20006<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 202.407.8834 direct<br>
>>>>>>>>>> 202.637.0968 fax<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:kbankston@cdt.org">kbankston@cdt.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> We need a clean copy.. but I am afraid I can't work on it today.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> But thanks MIke and others who have given input. I would be happy<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to let Joy and Jeremy clean up and give us a version to send tomorrow or<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Friday.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> By then we might also have responses to Andrew Puddephatt's<br>
>>>>>>>>>> questions.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 15:03, michael gurstein wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> I`ve commented as well and also around all day...<br>
>>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> M<br>
>>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: <a href="mailto:webwewant@googlegroups.com">webwewant@googlegroups.com</a> [<br>
>>>>>>>>>> mailto:<a href="mailto:webwewant@googlegroups.com">webwewant@googlegroups.com</a> <<a href="mailto:webwewant@googlegroups.com">webwewant@googlegroups.com</a>>] On<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:28 AM<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:webwewant@googlegroups.com">webwewant@googlegroups.com</a>;<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org">irp@lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [bestbits] International civil society letter to<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Congress to<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> follow up from HRC statement<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Great work. Thanks Joy and Jeremy . I have made some comments. Will<br>
>>>>>>>>>> be<br>
>>>>>>>>>> around all day if needed.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> Anriette<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/06/2013 06:01, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> This follows on from a telephone call organised by the Web<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Foundation<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> yesterday, in which APC was asked to coordinate a civil society<br>
>>>>>>>>>> letter<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> to the US government from international organisations. That<br>
>>>>>>>>>> letter<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> would follow on from our joint statement to the Human Rights<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Council,<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> and we would invite Human Rights Watch and Privacy International<br>
>>>>>>>>>> to<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> participate in drafting. APC agreed to do this and suggested<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> continuing to use Best Bits as the coordinating coalition.<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Here is the first rough draft of the text that Joy from APC and I<br>
>>>>>>>>>> have<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> begun to put together, which awaits your comments and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> improvements:<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here" target="_blank">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here</a> (sorry for the dumb<br>
>>>>>>>>>> URL)<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> Although I'm cc'ing the IRP and Web We Want lists, to avoid<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> fragmentation of discussions on the text like happened<br>
>>>>>>>>>> inadvertently<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> last time, can I suggest, if nobody objects, that we centralise on<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> this list, and that if you are not a member you can join at<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits" target="_blank">
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits</a>. To bring in<br>
>>>>>>>>>> others, you<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> can point them towards this list too.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Web We Want working group" group.<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> send an<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> email to <a href="mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target="_blank">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>>>>>>> anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
>>>>>>>>>> south africa<br>
>>>>>>>>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> send an email to <a href="mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">
webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target="_blank">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>
>>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,<br>
>>>>>>>>>> send an email to <a href="mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">
webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target="_blank">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*<br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389<br>
>>>>>>>>> *<a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>*<br>
>>>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini<br>
>>>>>>>>> @carolinarossini<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>
>>>>>>>>> Groups "Web We Want working group" group.<br>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,<br>
>>>>>>>>> send an email to <a href="mailto:webwewant%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">
webwewant+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>>> For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out" target="_blank">
https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
>>>>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<<a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/</a>><br>
>>>>>>>> @joana_varon<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a><br>
>>>>>>> + 1 6176979389<br>
>>>>>>> *<a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>*<br>
>>>>>>> skype: carolrossini<br>
>>>>>>> @carolinarossini<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini*<br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a><br>
>>>>>> + 1 6176979389<br>
>>>>>> *<a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>*<br>
>>>>>> skype: carolrossini<br>
>>>>>> @carolinarossini<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> --<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
>>>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)<<a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/</a>><br>
>>>>> @joana_varon<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> *Carolina Rossini*<br>
>>>> <a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a><br>
>>>> + 1 6176979389<br>
>>>> *<a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a>*<br>
>>>> skype: carolrossini<br>
>>>> @carolinarossini<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>><br>
>>> Joana Varon Ferraz<br>
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) <<a href="http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/" target="_blank">http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts/</a>><br>
>>> @joana_varon<br>
><br>
> --<br>
> ------------------------------------------------------<br>
> anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
> executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
> <a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
> po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
> south africa<br>
> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692<br>
><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
The Internet Democracy Project<br>
<br>
+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs<br>
<a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in/" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>