<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Agree. And I would like to understand why it was
removed.<br>
<br>
I propose that everyone who submits input focuses on this. I have
yet to work on the doc with colleagues in APC and will share
insights as we go.<br>
<br>
But this is particularly important as it covers ALL surveillance,
not just mass surveillance. It addresses ALL governments and not
just the US government. It is important for the long term.<br>
<br>
Anriette<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/04/2014 09:41, Jeanette Hofmann
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:534F85B8.5020205@wzb.eu" type="cite">I think
that particularly because necessary and proportionate has been in
the document before and refers to principles that have broad
political support, chances are good to get this language back in.
It is definitely worth fighting for!
<br>
<br>
jeanette
<br>
<br>
Am 17.04.14 03:59, schrieb parminder:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
On Thursday 17 April 2014 04:08 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi everyone,
<br>
To me one of the weakest sections of the document is the
paragraph
<br>
dealing with surveillance issues (para 35 of the Roadmap)
which reads
<br>
“Internet surveillance – Mass and arbitrary surveillance
undermines
<br>
trust in the Internet and trust in the Internet governance
ecosystem.
<br>
Surveillance of communications, their interception, and the
collection
<br>
of personal data, including mass surveillance, interception
and
<br>
collection should be conducted in accordance with states’
obligations
<br>
under international human rights law. More dialogue is needed
on this
<br>
topic at the international level using forums like IGF and the
Human
<br>
Rights Council aiming to develop a common understanding on all
the
<br>
related aspects”.
<br>
This fairly weak language and action line (more dialogue) is
not
<br>
surprising given the governmental input (including US
Government) into
<br>
the drafting. So far the only comment on this is from me,
where I
<br>
suggest reference to the necessaryandproportionate.org
principles.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
You of course know that reference to 'necessary and
proportionate' was
<br>
there in the original draft and it got removed... What are the
chances
<br>
then it will be reinstated at your request?
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think it would be useful if others
commented as individuals. Perhaps
<br>
what we need is some better wording (which perhaps governments
would
<br>
be embarrassed not to include), and which would strengthen the
<br>
response here. In any case, some wording and indication of
level of
<br>
concern to ensure that this is discussed on the floor of the
meeting
<br>
rather than simply passed by as an adequate wording would be
useful!
<br>
Ian Peter
<br>
The site for entering responses is
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/">http://document.netmundial.br/2-roadmap-for-the-future-evolution-of-the-internet-governance/</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>
executive director, association for progressive communications
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.apc.org">www.apc.org</a>
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692</pre>
</body>
</html>