From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sun Jun 30 23:13:03 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 23:13:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: <20130630231303.23993v0fl7b345hb@www.ciencitec.com> Tracy: As far as I have information, were a list of people which include my name, which is the action that I do, what is the role? o function?. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 23:57:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 09:27:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51D04C5B.5090105@cafonso.ca> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> <51D04C5B.5090105@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51D0FE3E.9010001@itforchange.net> On Sunday 30 June 2013 08:48 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Oh, OK, if Icann is "thinking" about it, problem solved :) Maybe I am over perceiving it, but to me it looks lke the end of the road for closed generics... I mean it is very difficult to find a plausible 'public interest purpose' to allocate .book exclusively to Amazon and .beauty to L' Oreal..... Maybe someone like /International Federation of Library Associations /could still be handed over .book, but as for closed generics owned by corporate houses I dont see it going forward after this. However, happy to hear other views. And in case it really is still quite open, maybe IGC should write to ICANN against closed generics, especially now that even ALAC, which was quite ambivalent all the while, has endorsed GAC's advice on closed generics.... Havent seen any NCUC statement on GAC advice yet though.... parminder > > --c.a. > > On 06/30/2013 06:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c >> >> http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>>> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. >>> The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. >>> >>> GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds >>> (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" >>> >>> (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " >>> >>> I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. >>> >>> >>> These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. >>> >>> Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... >>> >>> parminder >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Tom Lowenhaupt >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 02:18:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 18:18:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection > through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : > https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 03:39:44 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:39:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: That will be great! Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 1, 2013 7:19 AM, "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support > the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed > here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection >> through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen >> wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> FYI. (Source : >> https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >> >>> >> >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >> >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >> >>> >> >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >> >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >> >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >> >>> block access to content for people across the globe. >> >>> >> >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >> >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >> >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >> >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >> >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >> >>> vendors into the HTML standard. >> >>> >> >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >> >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >> >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >> >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >> >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >> >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >> >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >> >>> >> >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >> >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >> >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >> >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >> >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >> >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >> >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >> >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >> >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >> >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >> >>> companies. >> >>> >> >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >> >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >> >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >> >>> >> >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >> >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >> >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >> >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >> >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >> >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >> >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >> >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >> >>> gave birth to the Web." >> >>> >> >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >> >>> >> >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >> >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >> >>> >> >>> Contacts: >> >>> >> >>> Danny O'Brien >> >>> International Outreach Coordinator >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> danny at eff.org >> >>> >> >>> Seth Schoen >> >>> Senior Staff Technologist >> >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> seth at eff.org >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Tapani Tarvainen >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 03:50:58 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 08:50:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based oversight,"........... Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability > and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight > mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am > presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really > clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts > it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is > fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to > accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been > demonstrated. > > Avri - Excellent observation. > > Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes > (including > multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite > before any > possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In > particular, > one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the > rails" can > (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external > mechanisms such > as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination role > on > behalf of the global Internet community. > > A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only > germane > when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government > AoC-based > oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any > meaningful > response. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped > organizations > may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 06:18:43 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 10:18:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: Precisely, in this line of thought, is it desirable then to work towards an AoC type of agreement between ICANN and GAC members, ultimately? Which AoC will then supersede the current one with a single government. There was a time an international framework convention was advocated by a well respected US academic institution, now we understand it is out of date (and we know now Internet is averse to international treaties.) Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? Because otherwise, GAC just looks like an informal collection of governments taking sometimes the freedom to push for a position that would be illegal even in their own country (making ICANN into an informal market for government policy, notwithstanding whatever is in the ICANN Bylaws about GAC). I shall add if such multilateral AoC were to be the way, when comes the time, I'd expect the drafting/negotiation phase to go through iterations for multistakeholder and internet community inputs. Mawaki On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government > AoC-based oversight,"........... > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > >> On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability >> and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight >> mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am >> presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really >> clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts >> it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is >> fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to >> accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been >> demonstrated. >> >> Avri - Excellent observation. >> >> Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes >> (including >> multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite >> before any >> possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In >> particular, >> one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the >> rails" can >> (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external >> mechanisms such >> as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination >> role on >> behalf of the global Internet community. >> >> A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only >> germane >> when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government >> AoC-based >> oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any >> meaningful >> response. >> >> FYI, >> /John >> >> Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped >> organizations >> may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at uzh.ch Sat Jun 1 09:46:59 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 15:46:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Jun 1 11:35:30 2013 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:35:30 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I agree with Bill, what ICANN has to do as the next step to clarify the procedures for the communication, coordination and collaboration in an enhanced PDP amont ALL stakewholders involved in ICANN, INCLUDING the GAC. This could be in a form of an AoC (or a FoC). BTW, a good issue both for the Durban workshop as well as for ATLAS II. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Sa 01.06.2013 15:46 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Mawaki Chango Cc: Avri Doria; John Curran Betreff: Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. Cheers Bill -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kabani.asif at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 11:41:46 2013 From: kabani.asif at gmail.com (Kabani) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 20:41:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331B2E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Agree with Wolfgang +1 On Saturday, 1 June 2013, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I agree with Bill, what ICANN has to do as the next step to clarify the > procedures for the communication, coordination and collaboration in an > enhanced PDP amont ALL stakewholders involved in ICANN, INCLUDING the GAC. > This could be in a form of an AoC (or a FoC). > > BTW, a good issue both for the Durban workshop as well as for ATLAS II. > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von > William Drake > Gesendet: Sa 01.06.2013 15:46 > An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Mawaki Chango > Cc: Avri Doria; John Curran > Betreff: Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET > NEUTRALITY AND MORE) > > > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: > > > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as > greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a > subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > Bill > > -- Sent from iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 12:42:48 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 16:42:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill, My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a single government to a body representing the governments of the world. To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a consensus or at least an agreement. Best, Mawaki On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as > greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a > subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > Bill > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 14:07:26 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:07:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members, > > I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > > +1 > > > > On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: > > > >> > >> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder > >> > >> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) > >>> > >>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 > >>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation > >>> > >>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights > >>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the > >>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and > >>> block access to content for people across the globe. > >>> > >>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for > >>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates > >>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group > >>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media > >>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM > >>> vendors into the HTML standard. > >>> > >>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML > >>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the > >>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and > >>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While > >>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared > >>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious > >>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." > >>> > >>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to > >>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their > >>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal > >>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down > >>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of > >>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to > >>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, > >>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or > >>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers > >>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content > >>> companies. > >>> > >>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. > >>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of > >>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. > >>> > >>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar > >>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web > >>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it > >>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff > >>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for > >>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers > >>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy > >>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that > >>> gave birth to the Web." > >>> > >>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > >>> > >>> For more on DRM in HTML5: > >>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm > >>> > >>> Contacts: > >>> > >>> Danny O'Brien > >>> International Outreach Coordinator > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> danny at eff.org > >>> > >>> Seth Schoen > >>> Senior Staff Technologist > >>> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>> seth at eff.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 14:13:54 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 14:13:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> Message-ID: Hi, As far as I know, the chair of the GAC is one of 2 people responsible for picking the membership on all AOC review teams. And counting experts and ex-officio, who are the same as members in all respects except for the appointment process, 7 out of 16 fully participating members of the ATRT2 are Government - only 1 from the US. avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 06:18, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Precisely, in this line of thought, is it desirable then to work towards an AoC type of agreement between ICANN and GAC members, ultimately? Which AoC will then supersede the current one with a single government. > > There was a time an international framework convention was advocated by a well respected US academic institution, now we understand it is out of date (and we know now Internet is averse to international treaties.) Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? Because otherwise, GAC just looks like an informal collection of governments taking sometimes the freedom to push for a position that would be illegal even in their own country (making ICANN into an informal market for government policy, notwithstanding whatever is in the ICANN Bylaws about GAC). > > I shall add if such multilateral AoC were to be the way, when comes the time, I'd expect the drafting/negotiation phase to go through iterations for multistakeholder and internet community inputs. > > Mawaki > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > +1 to John's opinion on ......."ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based oversight,"........... > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On Jun 1, 2013 4:55 AM, "John Curran" wrote: > On May 28, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > - the Affirmation of Commitments reviews, including the Accountability and Transparency Review Team I am currently on, are a soft oversight mechanism. And I think a rather clever one at that - though I am presumptuous enough to beleive most people don't understand how really clever it is.. I don't think that even ICANN fully understands or accepts it yet, (see how presumptuous an idiot savant can be?) I think once it is fully developed (we are only in the second iteration) and ICANN learns to accept it as oversight, I think a certain level of maturity will have been demonstrated. > > Avri - Excellent observation. > > Having strong and successful Affirmation of Commitments processes (including > multiple government participation) is very likely a key prerequisite before any > possible change to the unique USG oversight role for ICANN... In particular, > one has to be confident that any future ICANN that might "go off the rails" can > (through its own mechanisms such as reconsideration and external mechanisms such > as the AoC) be brought back to proper performance of its coordination role on > behalf of the global Internet community. > > A question to the USG (regarding ending the USG's unique role) is only germane > when the precondition is met of ICANN having solid multiple-government AoC-based > oversight, otherwise it is likely to be far too hypothetical for any meaningful > response. > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Partaking of raw or underdeveloped organizations > may increase one's risk of a systemic disorder. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 1 15:32:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 07:32:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. > > I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. > > At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. > > Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. > > avri > > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Dear Members, >> >> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >>> +1 >>> >>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>> >>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>> >>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>> >>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>> >>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>> >>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>> >>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>> companies. >>>>> >>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>> >>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>> >>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>> >>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>> >>>>> Contacts: >>>>> >>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> seth at eff.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 1 17:16:23 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2013 17:16:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, sounds good. Perhaps my caution comes from my understanding of how consensus calling works. I think of it as a process approximately like - there is document - we talk a bunch, on list, in person, on chats, in drive, at bars ... wherever - after a while the coordinators put out a stmt saying they think there is consensus - it there is nothing but agreement, you got it. - if there is someone, like me in this case, saying " ummm. i don't think we have consensus because ..." then we talk a bunch more we edit a bit here and a bit there. - the coordinators guess again - and it repeats. o now if after a while everybody except me thinks there is consensus, then you tell me that you "understand my PoV and sorry, you are alone on this one, so shut up "(using whatever euphemism makes people feel like etiquette prevails.) And if no one comes to my rescue saying, "oh no we agree with her," you've got it, roughly. or something like that. Certainly can go quite quickly on a letter everybody seems to agree on. So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. cheers, avri On 1 Jun 2013, at 15:32, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. > > So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. >> >> I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. >> >> At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. >> >> Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear Members, >>> >>> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Sala >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>>> >>>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>>> >>>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>>> >>>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>>> >>>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>>> >>>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>>> >>>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>>> companies. >>>>>> >>>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>>> >>>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>>> >>>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>>> >>>>>> Contacts: >>>>>> >>>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> seth at eff.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >> 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Sat Jun 1 17:38:57 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:38:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Same happens in Peru In-Reply-To: References: <72F06E48-A613-4445-9EA0-830CD7E7A3F7@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130601173857.729071ev7xulvoc1@www.ciencitec.com> The same happens in Peru, ISOC only exists for five individuals who have appropriate and not summon renewal charges. They are aware of this?, Gentlemen. Managers of ISOC, there can be individuals who take ownership of Organizations. Enough. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Kabani escribió: > Naveed, > > Many thanks for updates on the subject. > > Sala, this is the present situation of ISOC in Pakistan > > Thanks & regards > > > > On Wednesday, 29 May 2013, Naveed haq wrote: > >> Dear Sala, >> >> >> >> At present, there is no ISOC Pakistan. >> >> Please be informed that the Internet Society Pakistan Chapter went >> under a community driven rejuvenation process started in mid-2011. >> ****** >> >> Presently, the community members are in process of forming city >> based chapter(s) in Pakistan. One of the community efforts to form >> >> Internet Society Pakistan Islamabad chapter is in final steps of >> chartership. >> >> However, several global / individual members of the Internet >> Society from Pakistan are actively involved with the IGC. >> >> >> >> Best regards,**** >> >> Naveed Haq >> >> Chapter Development Manager, Asia-Pacific >> >> Internet Society >> >> > From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com > 'salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com');> >> > Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 14:50:27 +1200 >> > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > 'governance at lists.igcaucus.org');> >> > Subject: [governance] ISOC Pakistan [URGENT] >> > >> > Dear All, >> > >> > Could members of ISOC Pakistan or affiliates of ISOC Pakistan who are >> within the IGC please contact me offlist? >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > Sent from my iPad >> > > > -- > Sent from iPad > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 1 19:52:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 05:22:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with Avri that the co cos should formally seek consensus and invite objections of any within a defined period, before proceeding to declare consensus. --srs (iPad) On 02-Jun-2013, at 2:46, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > sounds good. > > Perhaps my caution comes from my understanding of how consensus calling works. > > I think of it as a process approximately like > > - there is document > - we talk a bunch, on list, in person, on chats, in drive, at bars ... wherever > - after a while the coordinators put out a stmt saying they think there is consensus > - it there is nothing but agreement, you got it. > - if there is someone, like me in this case, saying " ummm. i don't think we have consensus because ..." then we talk a bunch more we edit a bit here and a bit there. > - the coordinators guess again > - and it repeats. > o now if after a while everybody except me thinks there is consensus, then you tell me that you "understand my PoV and sorry, you are alone on this one, so shut up "(using whatever euphemism makes people feel like etiquette prevails.) And if no one comes to my rescue saying, "oh no we agree with her," you've got it, roughly. > > or something like that. > > Certainly can go quite quickly on a letter everybody seems to agree on. > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > cheers, > > avri > > > On 1 Jun 2013, at 15:32, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> The idea is to initiate a draft text and invite comment and if there is support for the text and consensus, then we can issue the text. >> >> So far, there has been nothing but agreement for the IGC to issue a statement to the EFF. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 6:07 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I am one of those who support sending a note is support. >>> >>> I recommend hesitation in saying we have consensus until such time as there is a proper consensus call on the yet to be written note. Even 24 hours would probably be sufficient. >>> >>> At this point, i think we have seen support for the sending an as of yet unwritten note, but there unless i missed it while traveling I am not aware of a consensus call on a note. >>> >>> Forgive me for being picky about coordinator business that is probably none of my business. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 1 Jun 2013, at 02:18, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Noting that there is consensus for the IGC to send a statement to support the objection by EFF, we will initiate a draft text that will be placed here for public comment and input before we finalise and publish the same. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 9:04 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> Dear Members, >>>> >>>> I would like to know if there is consensus in supporting EFF's objection through the crafting of the statement. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On May 30, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> On May 30 13:51, parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I propose that the IGC supports and endorses this objection... parminder >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thursday 30 May 2013 06:07 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>>>> FYI. (Source : https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-makes-formal-objection-drm-html5) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EFF Makes Formal Objection to DRM in HTML5 >>>>>>> Draft Proposal from W3C Could Stymie Web Innovation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> San Francisco - Today the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>>> filed a formal objection to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5, arguing that a draft proposal from the >>>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stymie Web innovation and >>>>>>> block access to content for people across the globe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The W3C's HTML working group is creating a technical standard for >>>>>>> HTML5, an upcoming revision to the computer language that creates >>>>>>> webpages and otherwise displays content online. The working group >>>>>>> has accepted a draft that includes discussion of Encrypted Media >>>>>>> Extensions (EME), which will hard-wire the requirements of DRM >>>>>>> vendors into the HTML standard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "This proposal stands apart from all other aspects of HTML >>>>>>> standardization: it defines a new 'black box' for the >>>>>>> entertainment industry, fenced off from control by the browser and >>>>>>> end-user," said EFF International Director Danny O'Brien. "While >>>>>>> this plan might soothe Hollywood content providers who are scared >>>>>>> of technological evolution, it could also create serious >>>>>>> impediments to interoperability and access for all." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DRM standards look like normal technical standards but turn out to >>>>>>> have quite different qualities. They fail to implement their >>>>>>> stated intention – protecting media – while dragging in legal >>>>>>> mandates that chill the speech of technologists, lock down >>>>>>> technology, and violate property rights by seizing control of >>>>>>> personal computers from their owners. Accepting EME could lead to >>>>>>> other rightsholders demanding the same privileges as Hollywood, >>>>>>> leading to a Web where images and pages cannot be saved or >>>>>>> searched, ads cannot be blocked, and innovative new browsers >>>>>>> cannot compete without explicit permission from big content >>>>>>> companies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EFF filed this objection as its first act as a full member of W3C. >>>>>>> EFF's goal is to broaden the discussion of the consequences of >>>>>>> accepting DRM-based proposals like EME for the future of the Web. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The W3C needs to develop a policy regarding DRM and similar >>>>>>> proposals, or risk having its own work and the future of the Web >>>>>>> become buried in the demands of businesses that would rather it >>>>>>> never existed in the first place," said EFF Senior Staff >>>>>>> Technologist Seth Schoen. "The EME proposal needs to be seen for >>>>>>> what it is: a creation that will shut out open source developers >>>>>>> and competition, throw away interoperability, and lock in legacy >>>>>>> business models. This is the opposite of the fair use model that >>>>>>> gave birth to the Web." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For EFF's full Formal Objection: >>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For more on DRM in HTML5: >>>>>>> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/05/eff-joins-w3c-fight-drm >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Contacts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Danny O'Brien >>>>>>> International Outreach Coordinator >>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>>> danny at eff.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Seth Schoen >>>>>>> Senior Staff Technologist >>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>>> seth at eff.org >>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Tapani Tarvainen >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>> 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: >> 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 2 04:27:00 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:27:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> Message-ID: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it before calling consensus. PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 2 04:38:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 14:08:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Consensus proposals should then by default come with a poll link Thanks for providing it --srs (htc one x) On 2 June 2013 1:57:00 PM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I > just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. > We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership > database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the > results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it > before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From amedinagomez at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 05:18:16 2013 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 04:18:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> <13f0409efa2.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Supporting EFF's letter. Antonio Medina Gómez Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet 2013/6/2 Suresh Ramasubramanian > Consensus proposals should then by default come with a poll link > > Thanks for providing it > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 2 June 2013 1:57:00 PM Jeremy Malcolm ** wrote: > > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I > just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. > We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership > database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the > results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it > before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 08:23:41 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:23:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> References: <51A69F60.9020700@catherine-roy.net> <51A70C26.2070707@itforchange.net> <20130530085317.GD4314@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <09AA7FDA-9C2D-4723-990B-0CFF01444BDA@gmail.com> <1ED5D5F7-F4E3-47A5-A666-A2F3F9169E99@gmail.com> <23FE8B91-B24E-493C-AD79-7D0FB2B11B13@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi, I sometimes think polls are necessary, but then we are almost into voting. The other problem with polls is that they don't ask for a reason for being against the attempted consensus. But they can be a useful tool on occasion for determining the difference between no support, some support and a lot of support. Also: Maybe for these sort of things we need a simple form letter. -- Para 1 - we are the IGC and the IGC is this. Do we have this from the last statement? Para 2 - After following IGC process, the IGC has reached consensus in support of (identification of thing being supported) Para 3. - We encourage others to review and support the [proposal/recommendation/appeal/petition] found at (url of thing being supported.) Sincerely Co-ordinators of IGC -- And if we all reached consensus for the same reason we can include: para. 2.5 we support this because (consensus reasons go here) But this is a hard para. to write and get agreement on in a group as diverse as this is. One of the primary (strengths, weaknesses) of the IGC is its diversity. When we can get off our differences long enough to find the commonalities, our statements have significance. - people know that we have a lots of [stuff] to overcome in coming to consensus, and when a group this diverse reaches consensus, that is something. avri On 2 Jun 2013, at 04:27, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 02/06/2013, at 5:16 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> So, since I think in terms like that, when I see the "consensus" word, I just have to say something if I don't think we have it. > > I've always found the poll useful in determining the extent of consensus. We have our own polling software set up and linked to the membership database, and it takes about 10 minutes to set up a poll and for the results to start rolling in. I suggest more use should be made of it before calling consensus. > > PS. I am in favour of supporting EFF's objection. > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 08:26:42 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:26:42 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to comment on the text. We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on various paragraphs and also suggest text. *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of sharing information which empowers communities. We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 08:34:12 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 00:34:12 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Apologies for the typos - edits have been highlighted below] On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:26 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support > EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and > feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to > comment on the text. > > We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are > inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble > posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post > it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on > various paragraphs and also suggest text. > > > *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be > developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including > but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal > would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy > interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > We note that much of the developing world, relies on open source > developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of > sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and > diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and > with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for > ease of sharing information which empowers communities. > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will > kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights > management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised > within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. > > > > [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 2 08:50:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 20:50:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8DD5AB72-1E9E-4C01-A583-4ED85F1A7171@ciroap.org> On 02/06/2013, at 8:26 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > The impact of the standard if allowed to be developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including but not limited to property rights. > I suggest getting rid of this sentence, which is a bit wooly and hyperbolic. > We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of sharing information which empowers communities. > This para is good, though. > We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection [1] raised by the EFF. > I have some problems with this para too and would suggest it be simplified to something like "For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard." Short and sweet. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 08:50:24 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 08:50:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From william.drake at uzh.ch Sun Jun 2 09:18:24 2013 From: william.drake at uzh.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 15:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> Hi Mawaki On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Bill, > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), One could argue that equitable accountability to the full range of nongovernmental stakeholders still needs, um, a wee bit of work :-( > but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. While R3 has proven to be as open to abuse as expected, with regard to institutional design of a global AoC it'd presumably require some local clarification and codification. > > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a single government to a body representing the governments of the world. Hmm…I wonder how hard this binary has to be. How about if they play a particular but in most dimensions equal role? > > To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a consensus or at least an agreement. No question, ingenuity will be needed. Cheers, Bill > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? > > I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. > > Cheers > > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 ********************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake at uzh.ch www.williamdrake.org *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 09:22:48 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 09:22:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jun 2 11:56:02 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:12:57 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:12:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-822519618-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> I thınk stymıe or hınder ınnovatıon ıs more apt and measurable Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 To: ; McTim Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:14:50 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:14:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1392888353-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <51AB6B12.1040508@cafonso.ca> <1829874478-1370188928-cardhu_blackberry.rim.net-copy_sent_folder-1392888353-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Message-ID: <293876162-1370189040-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-752869823-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Or we can say ıt has the abılıty to hınder access to knowledge for online users Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: babatope at gmail.com Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:12:57 To: ; Carlos A. Afonso; McTim Reply-To: babatope at gmail.com Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 I thınk stymıe or hınder ınnovatıon ıs more apt and measurable Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: "Carlos A. Afonso" Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 12:56:02 To: ; McTim Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,"Carlos A. Afonso" Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 Jeremy suggested a replacement, not simply dropping it. He suggested dropping another para. I agree with him. --c.a. On 06/02/2013 10:22 AM, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> >> >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > > of course not, it's overblown hyperbole. 'Stymie" or "hinder" are > better words, or just drop the para per Jeremy. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 2 12:08:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 21:38:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I support avri's argument. Openness, vendor neutrality etc rather than vague and fuzzy terms --srs (htc one x) On 2 June 2013 6:20:24 PM Avri Doria wrote: > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will > kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights > management (DRM) in HTML5. > > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the > others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone > invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one > would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and > build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation > more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or > hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should > do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > avri > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:13:53 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:13:53 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <66CB1051-4D97-4388-9AD1-D8A4C005290D@uzh.ch> Message-ID: Hi Bill On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 1:18 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Mawaki > > ... > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to > which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a > multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal > footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more > like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I > can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly > distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > 2. Governments have a particular role to play: the very purpose of the GAC > assumes that as well as the current role of USG/DoC since its position for > ICANN oversight is held by USG alone not a multistakeholder body (i.e. USG > surrounding itself with a sample of other stakeholders to collectively > carry out the oversight function.) Therefore the next step would just be > about extending that unique governmental mission so far in the hands of a > single government to a body representing the governments of the world. > > > Hmm…I wonder how hard this binary has to be. How about if they play a > particular but in most dimensions equal role? > I guess the devil remains, as always, in the detail and ingenuity will be needed right from here on in order to craft the appropriate language that would satisfy all stakeholders, which will provide that, while they may get to have specific and different roles, those are "in most dimensions equal." For now we can only look forward to that moment of "reformation" (or rather, what is called in French "refondation") of global internet governance institution. Best, Mawaki p.s. just for the record, a clarification to my last sentence at point 1 in the previous message --should read as follows: I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation not only across stakeholder groups but also across regions within each stakeholder group. > > To which 'position 1' may respond: Well, no! That arrangement may have > been necessary at the early stage of ICANN experiment till certain > maturity. Now we have reached that time where we need to move forward with > an affirmative and autonomous multistakeholder structure, etc. And that's > where all the ingenuity of the actors involved will be needed to get to a > consensus or at least an agreement. > > > No question, ingenuity will be needed. > > Cheers, > > Bill > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 1:46 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Mawaki >> >> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:18 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> Would a multilateral AoC between ICANN and GAC make sense? >> >> >> I'd argue a multistakeholder one evolved from the current structure if/as >> greater confidence and trust are built would be better. This has been a >> subject of some consideration in relevant capitals, IGF sessions, etc. >> >> Cheers >> >> Bill >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > ********************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From aidanoblia at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 12:21:22 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:21:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <13f05a5d366.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Dear: Like most of the reviews seem to agree on the essentials of the draft letter of Salanieta, except a few paragraphs, I tried to look at the following what has been raised so far in the list. Apologize if it is not in line with what I set, only with the spirit of cooperation. Downstairs if I add them useful. Regards Aida Noblia ------------- The Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We believe that the proposed standard by the W3C is a serious threat to a free and open Internet. We endorse and support the formal objection filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). We understand the impact of the implementation of the proposed standard of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C affect various human rights seriously, slow web innovation and block access to content for people around the globe. Another inherent danger of the proposal is to exclude open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in existing business models. We note that most of the developing world is based on open source developers so that the mechanisms that allow an open environment to share resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In regions where access to information is a challenge and serious resource constraints a free and open internet allows ease of information exchange that allows communities. For these reasons we strongly oppose the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 and fully support the arguments raised in the objection [1] proposed by the EFF. ---------------------------- 2013/6/2 Suresh Ramasubramanian > I support avri's argument. Openness, vendor neutrality etc rather than > vague and fuzzy terms > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > On 2 June 2013 6:20:24 PM Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of >> the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic >> for me. >> >> I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone >> invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. >> >> - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one >> would innovate at all (i disagree btw) >> >> - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from >> and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes >> innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I >> don't think so. >> People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or >> hinder it, but neither side can kill it. >> >> I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we >> should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to >> Knowledge. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Jun 2 14:48:58 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:48:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> * How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. avri ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sun Jun 2 16:04:33 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 16:04:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> +1 On 2 Jun 2013, at 14:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > • How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From aidanoblia at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 16:48:52 2013 From: aidanoblia at gmail.com (Aida Noblia) Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2013 17:48:52 -0300 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> References: <1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <91BF4E1C-F788-49A7-867A-0A879F943AF6@acm.org> Message-ID: Ok in accordance 2013/6/2 Avri Doria > +1 > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 14:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > • How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights > management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM > INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [ > avri at acm.org] > > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > > To: IGC > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should > the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital > rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > >> > > > > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of > the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic > for me. > > > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone > invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no > one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from > and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes > innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I > don't think so. > > > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate > or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we > should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to > Knowledge. > > > > avri > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > > 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: > 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 > > -- Aida Noblia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jun 2 23:18:16 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:48:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My 2c Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. -C On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 5:56 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that there is consensus for IGC to draft a Statement to support > EFF's Objection, kindly find the Draft Text enclosed for your comments and > feedback. Please add your thoughts. We would like to invite our members to > comment on the text. > > We have not initiated a call for consensus on this Draft as we are > inviting input and feedback on the draft. I have been having trouble > posting it on the IGC Statement space and once this is resolved, will post > it there which will allow for a systematic way for members to comment on > various paragraphs and also suggest text. > > > *Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) in HTML5* > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The impact of the standard if allowed to be > developed will cause serious violations of various human rights including > but not limited to property rights. The inherent danger of the proposal > would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy > interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > We note that much of the developing world relies on open source developers > to enable mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In regions, where access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, an open and free internet allows for ease of > sharing information which empowers communities. > > We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion > of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We would also like to > reiterate that we fully endorse the arguments raised within the objection > [1] raised by the EFF. > > > > [1] https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 02:13:10 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 02:13:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Hi Bill, > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization may have multiple "respective roles"... I explore this question with respect the "role of government" below. > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of argument: > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution. In the Affirmation of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a particular government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize periodic reviews of its commitments. Governments seeking similar commitments from ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and participate in those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have I asked ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-) I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a central body as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an AoC agreement. If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held by governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there is some additional "body" involved in your solution. The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; it does not address the role of governments in the policy development process. It is quite possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but still one available to governments that wish more than just participating via the oversight role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments. For example, with respect to number resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and comment on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) development processes just as any other participant. The "policy development" role is available to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the policy formation process. It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a third role, since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but (per the ICANN Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues." This appears to be a liaison role, whereby governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and policies may intersect laws and agreements. Telling ICANN that a policy has an interaction with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual participation during the course of policy development and should not be lightly co-mingled. In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but more likely "what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to coordination of critical Internet resources. FYI, /John Disclaimers: My views alone. Not being a government, I do not intend to enter into an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the Internet I still intend to hold them accountable to the principles therein (at least via the court of public opinion... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 03:42:02 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 08:42:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 08:48:16 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health >and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a >challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and >free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing >information) that empowers communities Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work freely? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 04:38:55 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:08:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." -C On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com >, at 08:48:16 > on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >> communities >> > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the Open > Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work freely? > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 3 04:58:30 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 10:58:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<1EF882F4-C2D2-45C7-B901-619B60D86836@acm.org> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FB8E@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51AC5AB6.8030007@apc.org> I can live with 'constrain innovation' but I do think it is important to refer to DRM's impact on innovation resulting from restrictions on easy sharing and reuse of content. Anriette On 02/06/2013 20:48, Lee W McKnight wrote: > * How about: "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will CONSTRAIN WEB innovation. We strongly object to inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5, AND INSIST DRM INDUSTRY INTERESTS NOT DISTORT CORE PROTOCOLS OF THE OPEN INTERNET." > > ________________________________ > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Avri Doria [avri at acm.org] > Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2013 8:50 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > > > On 2 Jun 2013, at 08:34, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 will kill innovation and we strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> > Thanks for highlighting this sentence. While I have issues with some of the others that I need to think through, this one stands out as problematic for me. > > I think that 'innovation' is one of those unidentifiables that everyone invokes in their statements no matter what position they are taking. > > - those advocating DRM say that without the money that DRM enables no one would innovate at all (i disagree btw) > > - those opposing DRM say that without the work of others to learn from and build upon we would kill innovation. I disagree, sure it makes innovation more challenging and is the wrong thing to do, but kill it? I don't think so. > > People will innovate because they are innovators, so we can facilitate or hinder it, but neither side can kill it. > > I think if we going to include a reason, something I am not sure we should do, I think it has to rest of arguments related to Access to Knowledge. > > avri > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 3 05:27:33 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 11:27:33 +0200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Message-ID: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> Dear all I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. Anriette *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to announce the call for applications for the first African School on Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July 2013. Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and cultural development. The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has given rise to the South School on IG held annually in Latin America for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: * History and overview of IG * Policy, development and human rights * Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, internet intermediaries * Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges and opportunities APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: * Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 but who would need to arrive earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) * Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and accommodation for the duration of the School) The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the African School on IG. To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Call for Applications AfriIG_31052013.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 371927 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 05:40:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 21:40:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> Message-ID: <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> This is fantastic Anriette. :) Sent from my iPad On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear all > > I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the > first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take > place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban > South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this > list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us > to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. > > Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. > > Anriette > > *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on > Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* > > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD > Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to > announce the call for applications for the first African School on > Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July > 2013. > > Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and > application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of > principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and > programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few > contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, > power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the > subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem > within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as > well as the principles on which such governance should be based. > > What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating > effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in > IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and > (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and > inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, > businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and > collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies > aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and > cultural development. > > The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held > in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has > given rise to the South School on IG > held annually in Latin America for > the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. > The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise > session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will > utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that > of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be > covered include: > > * > > History and overview of IG > > * > > Policy, development and human rights > > * > > Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, > internet intermediaries > > * > > Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges > and opportunities > > > APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: > > * > > Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 > but who would need to arrive > earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) > > * > > Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want > to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and > accommodation for the duration of the School) > > The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and > other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the > African School on IG. > > > To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June > 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 06:14:36 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:14:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> Message-ID: Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. Best Regards, On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > This is fantastic Anriette. :) > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > Dear all > > > > I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the > > first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take > > place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban > > South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this > > list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us > > to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. > > > > Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. > > > > Anriette > > > > *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on > > Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* > > > > The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD > > Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to > > announce the call for applications for the first African School on > > Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July > > 2013. > > > > Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and > > application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of > > principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and > > programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few > > contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, > > power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the > > subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem > > within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as > > well as the principles on which such governance should be based. > > > > What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating > > effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in > > IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and > > (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and > > inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, > > businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and > > collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies > > aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and > > cultural development. > > > > The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held > > in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has > > given rise to the South School on IG > > held annually in Latin America for > > the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. > > The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise > > session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will > > utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that > > of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be > > covered include: > > > > * > > > > History and overview of IG > > > > * > > > > Policy, development and human rights > > > > * > > > > Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, > > internet intermediaries > > > > * > > > > Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges > > and opportunities > > > > > > APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: > > > > * > > > > Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 > > but who would need to arrive > > earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) > > > > * > > > > Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want > > to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and > > accommodation for the duration of the School) > > > > The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and > > other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the > > African School on IG. > > > > > > To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June > > 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* > > > > > > -- > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > > www.apc.org > > po box 29755, melville 2109 > > south africa > > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > 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 > > -- Babatope Soremi A destructive means can not bring about a constructive end.... TB Quality is never an accident. It is always the result of intelligent effort. *John Ruskin * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 06:26:08 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 06:26:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > My 2c > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR > CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources > related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In > such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource > constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of > collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. I prefer this new text. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 07:13:38 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:13:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:13 AM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:42 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Hi Bill, > > > > My question, and tentative answer, was predicated on the notion that > there is no issue with the role of the other stakeholders within ICANN (see > constituency structures), but only with governments. But maybe you're right > suggesting that the whole framework be redefined for all stakeholders at > once. In which case, this will have to be a more complex exercise which > will require that the whole thorn that is "respective roles and > responsibilities" be removed or all aspects resolved once for all. > > Something to consider is whether there is a one to one relationship > between organizations and their roles, or whether an organization > may have multiple "respective roles"... I explore this question with > respect the "role of government" below. > > > The solution you're proposing suggests to me two opposing lines of > argument: > > > > 1. Governments have no particular role to play: the authoritative body > to which ICANN will commit to in an AoC type agreement will be a > multistakeholder one where all stakeholders are represented on equal > footing, government being just one of the stakeholders. (This seems more > like what is implied in that proposed solution.) In the best of worlds, I > can go with this assuming that sound mechanisms are found to fairly > distribute representation across stakeholder groups and regions. > > Wow... lots of assumptions embedded in the above solution. In the > Affirmation > of Commitments (at least as I understand it), ICANN is committing to a > particular > government (USG) to uphold certain important principles and organize > periodic > reviews of its commitments. Governments seeking similar commitments from > ICANN could probably get a similar Affirmation of Commitment and > participate in > those periodically reviews (I presume - I am neither a government nor have > I asked > ICANN to enter into such an AoC... ;-) > > I note that you use the phrase "the authoritative body"; this implies a > central body > as opposed to ICANN making these commitments to directly to all governments > that require such and wish to participate in the reviews via entry into an > AoC > agreement. If ICANN is willing to commit to these principles, and be held > by > governments accountable to them, I'm having trouble understanding why there > is some additional "body" involved in your solution. > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with each government separately.) Please note: i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to each one to form or join alliances in the process.) > > The oversight role for governments via the AoC is only one role available; > it does > not address the role of governments in the policy development process. It > is quite > possible that participating in policy development is a different role, but > still one > available to governments that wish more than just participating via the > oversight > role provided in the Affirmation of Commitments. For example, with > respect to number > resource policy under ICANN, governments are free to propose policy and > comment > on policy proposals underway in the Regional Internet Registry (RIR) > development > processes just as any other participant. The "policy development" role > is available > to all, and some governments do also participate at this level of the > policy formation > process. > > It is also possible that government participation through the GAC is yet a > third role, > since it is not provided for the normal course of policy development, but > (per the ICANN > Bylaws) to "consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they > relate to > concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an > interaction > between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or > where > they may affect public policy issues." This appears to be a liaison > role, whereby > governments have an opportunity to apprise ICANN of how its activities and > policies > may intersect laws and agreements. Telling ICANN that a policy has an > interaction > with a given law or agreement is important, but is not the same as actual > participation > during the course of policy development and should not be lightly > co-mingled. > > In truth, the question may not be "what is the role of government," but > more likely > "what are the available _roles_ for government" to play with respect to > coordination > of critical Internet resources. > I agree with you on all that. The comparison with the AoC by the phrase "AoC-type agreement" was not meant to say the current AoC content will be retained. The content of the new framework will be negotiated anew, with the definition of all types of role, relationships as well as all roles and functions (for governments or for all stakeholders in this particular document, depending on the type of framework eventually chosen for it), safe unnecessary levels of detail. Thanks, Mawaki > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Not being a government, I do not intend to > enter into > an AoC agreement with ICANN, but as a citizen of the > Internet I still > intend to hold them accountable to the principles > therein (at least via > the court of public opinion... ;-) > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 08:03:59 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 07:03:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... > ... > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) Okay, some points to consider: - In my view, ICANN has enormous incentive to sign AoC's with any government that wishes such, since it provides a straightforward well-defined relationship with governments which otherwise doesn't exist today - The effort involved in the reviews is quite large, interfacing with nearly every part of ICANN and also the various supporting organizations and constituencies. They are not "run by the US Congress"; you should refer to Avri's earlier note on the composition of the ATRT for additional details. It takes enormous effort to hold true external reviews of conformance to the commitments, and there is no way that these could be done multiple times in each review period, i.e. the reviews have to be common to all organizations which sign an AoC. > Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with each government separately.) While it is certainly possible to have common negotiation (and certainly having a single set of commitments makes good sense), I frankly do not see the benefit to ICANN of your proposed agreement structure, and if I were making the call, I would enter into the same agreement text directly with each government. > Please note: > i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. You use the term "multistakeholder" agreement, and yet I am unsure if the role of AoC oversight counterparty is a role that's meaningful for any entity other than a government. > ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to each one to form or join alliances in the process.) You seem to view the AoC relationship to ICANN as somehow related to the USG/NTIA "IANA Function" contract, where is it a completed independent concept... You can have 100 governments involved in performing oversight of ICANN, and that does not change USG having a contract with ICANN to perform certain central registry functions. If we had many such governments involved via AoC's, that would allow further consideration of how to evolve the IANA function contract, but the resolution of that contract doesn't necessarily involve the AoC signatories... FYI, /John Disclaimer: My views alone. Structure follows function (or at least should in rational systems...) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 3 08:18:57 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:18:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications In-Reply-To: References: <51AC6185.90104@apc.org> <91AEC940-1D5D-4E7D-9005-2762C9F1DCFF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51AC89B1.8060105@apc.org> Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in Durban >>> South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on on this >>> list - who have contributed the input and support that managed to get us >>> to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 July >>> 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society of >>> principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and >>> programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. While few >>> contest the definition itself, the respective roles, responsibility, >>> power and influence of various stakeholder groups continue to be the >>> subject of intense debate. Also contested is the institutional ecosystem >>> within which decisions that impact on the internet are being made, as >>> well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and participating >>> effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African participation in >>> IG, be it in technical, social or political spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional strategies >>> aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, political and >>> cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was held >>> in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual event and has >>> given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America for >>> the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but customise >>> session content to meet the needs of African IG interest groups. We will >>> utilise the expertise that exists within the continent as well as that >>> of international academics and practitioners in the field. Topics to be >>> covered include: >>> >>> * >>> >>> History and overview of IG >>> >>> * >>> >>> Policy, development and human rights >>> >>> * >>> >>> Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>> internet intermediaries >>> >>> * >>> >>> Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>> and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>> but who would need to arrive >>> earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>> to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>> accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation and >>> other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation in the >>> African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Mon Jun 3 08:20:32 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2013 14:20:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51AC8A10.6080207@apc.org> +1 Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:26, McTim wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > wrote: >> My 2c >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR >> CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources >> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In >> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource >> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > I prefer this new text. > > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 09:08:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 09:08:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications Message-ID: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 8:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in >>> Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on >>> on this list - who have contributed the input and support that >>> managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 >>> July 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society >>> of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, >>> and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. >>> While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, >>> responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups >>> continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the >>> institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the >>> internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and >>> participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African >>> participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political >>> spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional >>> strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, >>> political and cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was >>> held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual >>> event and has given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America >>> for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but >>> customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest >>> groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the >>> continent as well as that of international academics and >>> practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: >>> >>> * >>> >>> History and overview of IG >>> >>> * >>> >>> Policy, development and human rights >>> >>> * >>> >>> Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>> internet intermediaries >>> >>> * >>> >>> Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>> and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>> but who would need to arrive >>> earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>> * >>> >>> Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>> to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>> accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation >>> and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation >>> in the African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, >>> melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >> 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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 09:34:31 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 13:34:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: Two short remarks: 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if that works... All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. Mawaki On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2013, at 6:13 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Just to address what seems to me a bit of a misunderstanding... > > ... > > I do not see ICANN signing, say, 120 AoCs with a series of 120 > governments just because each one decides for itself that ICANN needs to > sign such document with them (a scenario that derives from what you're > saying above, for nothing guarantees that all AoCs will be a cut-and-paste > of the existing one and I don't see all the other governments flying to > D.C. to join the Congress when it holds those AoC-enabled hearings.) So on > the multiple AoCs scenario, I don't think ICANN has much incentive to do > that and accept the burden to manage that many separate sets of commitments > of possible legal consequences, just because any country wants to have that > imposed onto it (keeping in mind that governments already have the recourse > afforded to them by the bylaws article you quote below in case there was an > issue of illegality in their country with any ICANN policy.) > > Okay, some points to consider: > > - In my view, ICANN has enormous incentive to sign AoC's with any > government > that wishes such, since it provides a straightforward well-defined > relationship > with governments which otherwise doesn't exist today > > - The effort involved in the reviews is quite large, interfacing with > nearly every > part of ICANN and also the various supporting organizations and > constituencies. > They are not "run by the US Congress"; you should refer to Avri's > earlier note on > the composition of the ATRT for additional details. It takes enormous > effort to > hold true external reviews of conformance to the commitments, and there > is no > way that these could be done multiple times in each review period, i.e. > the reviews > have to be common to all organizations which sign an AoC. > > > Instead, and with a view to transitioning from the USG current role (or > position) to one similar or other roles (to be defined through the > negotiations that will then take place), I can see a collection of willing > governments collectively negotiating and signing one single document with > ICANN. This is not a treaty process. The opportunity will be well > publicized to governments but their membership (or manifestation of > interest to join) will be voluntary, a la GAC. Once they join, a > negotiating group comprised of government and ICANN delegates will be > formed to hammer out the draft of the agreement to be signed between them > and ICANN. The global internet community will be invited to comment and > give inputs, etc. Once there is a consensus on a text, a structure or an > individual delegated by that whole collection of governments will sign on > their behalf one Agreement with ICANN (instead of having an agreement with > each government separately.) > > While it is certainly possible to have common negotiation (and certainly > having > a single set of commitments makes good sense), I frankly do not see the > benefit > to ICANN of your proposed agreement structure, and if I were making the > call, I > would enter into the same agreement text directly with each government. > > > Please note: > > i) This is a brushing in broad strokes of the scenario that stems from > the options I presented earlier, as a response to your reading (I didn't > have to spend a lot of time thinking about all the details, so please bear > with me, nothing is set in stone.) But this scenario corresponds to option > 2, rather than option 1 above which instead focuses on a multistakeholder > AoC-type agreement with ICANN, not just a government-ICANN agreement. > > You use the term "multistakeholder" agreement, and yet I am unsure if > the role > of AoC oversight counterparty is a role that's meaningful for any entity > other than > a government. > > > ii) I use the term "authoritative body" first because I consider the > current USG position as an authoritative one: they have delegated that > function to ICANN which has to account back to them, not to mention they > are in position to sanction ICANN policies one way or the other, and my > understanding is that it is that role that we are seeking to evolve, so in > that context I don't think the terminology is misplaced or misused; second, > it is true that I am assuming some kind of structure will have to be > organized with the authority to act on behalf of all governments who join > that process. My take is that this is not particularly centralized beyond > what will be required to have one Agreement with a collection of actors, as > opposed to having as many agreements as there are counterparts (minus 1). > Most importantly, that body is not meant to replace anybody (as you seem to > interpret above) but could be used by the collection of willing governments > to do one ore more of these three things: negotiate the agreement, sign it, > or carried out the government functions on a continuous basis (i.e. outside > "statutory" sessions), all on behalf of the collection of individual > governments. Now I agree you may also have all those things done by all the > concerned governments individually, a bit like they do with treaties (up to > each one to form or join alliances in the process.) > > You seem to view the AoC relationship to ICANN as somehow related to the > USG/NTIA "IANA Function" contract, where is it a completed independent > concept... You can have 100 governments involved in performing oversight > of ICANN, and that does not change USG having a contract with ICANN to > perform certain central registry functions. If we had many such > governments > involved via AoC's, that would allow further consideration of how to > evolve the > IANA function contract, but the resolution of that contract doesn't > necessarily > involve the AoC signatories... > > FYI, > /John > > Disclaimer: My views alone. Structure follows function (or at least > should in > rational systems...) > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 3 10:15:53 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:15:53 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications In-Reply-To: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> References: <017101ce605b$877252f0$9656f8d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1370268953.59624.YahooMailNeo@web28904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Interesting school! If I come for the ISOC Chapter reunion earlier that, maybe I will be able to attend this School as well. Need to check very well the dates.   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo ________________________________ De : michael gurstein À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen' Envoyé le : Lundi 3 juin 2013 15h08 Objet : RE: [governance] African School on Internet Governance: call for applications -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 8:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] African School on IG: call for applications Thanks for the nice words Sala. As you can guess there are many people who have worked to get us this far. Nnenna, Towela Nyirenda Jere, Nnenna Nwakanma, Emilar Vushe, Dorothy Gordon, Makane Faye among others. We have had lots of moral and other support from the European School people (Wolfgang, Avri, Bill) and from Diplo. Babatope, I checked the link and it does work.. but one needs to be careful not to include the *. Here it is again, in Tiny URL and long form: https://www.apc.org/limesurvey/index.php/753225/lang-en http://tw.gs/Q7uehW Best Anriette On 03/06/2013 12:14, Babatope Soremi wrote: > Great news Anriette. Seems your link below has a slight error though. > > Best Regards, > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is fantastic Anriette. :) >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jun 3, 2013, at 9:27 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >> >>> Dear all >>> >>> I am very pleased to be announcing the call for applications for the >>> first African School on Internet Governance (ASIG) scheduled to take >>> place from 10-12 July, immediately prior to the ICANN meeting in >>> Durban South Africa. Thanks to the many people - including those on >>> on this list - who have contributed the input and support that >>> managed to get us to the point of being able to launch ASIG next month. >>> >>> Details below and in the attached PDF. Please distribute widely. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> *Call for Applications to Participate in the First African School on >>> Internet Governance in Durban South Africa, July 2013* >>> >>> The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) and the NEPAD >>> Planning and Coordinating Agency–e-Africa Programme are pleased to >>> announce the call for applications for the first African School on >>> Internet Governance to be held in Durban, South Africa, from 10-12 >>> July 2013. >>> >>> Internet Governance (IG) is usually defined as the development and >>> application, by governments, the private sector, and civil society >>> of principles, policies, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, >>> and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the internet. >>> While few contest the definition itself, the respective roles, >>> responsibility, power and influence of various stakeholder groups >>> continue to be the subject of intense debate. Also contested is the >>> institutional ecosystem within which decisions that impact on the >>> internet are being made, as well as the principles on which such governance should be based. >>> >>> What is not contested is that (a) IG is complex and and >>> participating effectively in IG processes is not easy, (b) African >>> participation in IG, be it in technical, social or political >>> spheres, is insufficient and >>> (b) few African countries have established sustainable open and >>> inclusive policy discussion forums where government, civil society, >>> businesses and technical people are able to interact effectively and >>> collaborate to develop consistent national and institutional >>> strategies aimed at mobilising the internet for economic, social, >>> political and cultural development. >>> >>> The first Summer School on IG (SSIG) was >>> held in Europe in Meissen in July 2007. It has become an annual >>> event and has given rise to the South School on IG >>> held annually in Latin America >>> for the last four years and an Asia Pacific school that took place in 2011. >>> The African School on IG will build on their experience but >>> customise session content to meet the needs of African IG interest >>> groups. We will utilise the expertise that exists within the >>> continent as well as that of international academics and >>> practitioners in the field. Topics to be covered include: >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    History and overview of IG >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Policy, development and human rights >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Regulation and management: standards, protocols, gTLDs, ccTLDs, >>>    internet intermediaries >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Multi-stakeholder approaches to IG: roles and processes, challenges >>>    and opportunities >>> >>> >>> APC/NPCA can support two groups of successful applicants: >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Those who are already planning to come to ICANN47 >>>    but who would need to arrive >>>    earlier to attend the School (accommodation and meals) >>> >>>  * >>> >>>    Those who are not currently planning to come to ICANN47 but who want >>>    to participate in the school (travel, visas and meals and >>>    accommodation for the duration of the School) >>> >>> The organisers of the School are not able to support accommodation >>> and other costs for particpation in ICANN47, only for participation >>> in the African School on IG. >>> >>> >>> To apply please fill in the form at *http://tw.gs/Q7uehW*by *12 June >>> 2013*. For more information contact *emilar at apc.org* >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, >>> association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, >>> melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >>      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 >> >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 10:33:31 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 15:33:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more normally known for). >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > freely? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 3 10:51:05 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:51:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Proper question is: Why should DRM on a Disney Movie download be baked into html5? Seeing as it is being baked in elsewhere, no need to feel sorry for Mickey Mouse's..rights: http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2013/06/03/arm-bakes-drm-graphics-chips.htm Lee ________________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:33 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In message , at 14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more normally known for). >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > freely? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jcurran at istaff.org Mon Jun 3 12:00:02 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 11:00:02 -0500 Subject: Affirmation of commitments Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Two short remarks: > > 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. Agreed, the benefit has to be looked at from both directions... I believe the underlying concept is that ICANN, through the AoC, has offered to be externally accountable to at least one government (USG), potentially to others (although I can't readily find a clean reference from ICANN of such an offer - hmm...) Right now, governments (other than USG) have no direct commitment from ICANN on these principles, and it might be useful for them to have such, either individually entered or collectively (e.g. the EU could be such a party) > 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if that works... The USG has several unique roles, and I'd recommend considering the one by one to determine if they need to remain unique. I do not believe that the oversight role needs to remain unique, as noted above and in prior email. If this oversight role were to be shared among several governments, then one of the items that could become a topic of these reviews is the existence of the IANA Function contract vis-a-vis ICANN's commitment in "ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users." I believe it is safe to say this is not as likely to arise if the only accountability to these principles is to the USG... > All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. Excellent discussion... thanks for sharing your thoughts! /John p.s. (Regarding the role of "being the party issuing the IANA Function Contract", I'm not sure that is actually a necessary role... see this earlier discussion on same) Disclaimers: My views alone. Contents may be flammable; keep away from the spark of action or the flame of open discussion... :-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 3 12:22:22 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 16:22:22 +0000 Subject: Affirmation of commitments Re: [governance] Potential IGC letter to US gov (was Re: NET NEUTRALITY AND MORE) In-Reply-To: References: <01f301ce5ac0$0f554430$2dffcc90$@gmail.com> <554420103-1369682604-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2140146156-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> <0B5FBB83-BE50-4BF0-A616-FFB2072BE59B@ella.com> <4B0A37B4-C311-444C-9974-8DB98FEF1B7E@acm.org> <51A4B748.5030501@itforchange.net> <20130528173258.4afc2dde@quill.bollow.ch> <8730A60A-041D-456A-8C6D-C6F58C49F144@ella.com> <02505502-7805-4E66-B2AC-7A68A605C456@istaff.org> <3AAED688-615C-467F-953B-8EC4A10C1A58@uzh.ch> <22A22980-7670-40E1-BDBB-F79CE290C697@istaff.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 4:00 PM, John Curran wrote: > On Jun 3, 2013, at 8:34 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > Two short remarks: > > > > 1. The cost/benefit (incentive/disincentive) analysis for a collective > governmental (or multilateral) agreement with ICANN has to be appreciated > both from ICANN and from government perspectives. And I admit, at this > point, I'm not pretty sure on which side the incentive scale will tip for > having either such collective framework or a collection of bilateral > agreements with ICANN. Adding to that, there might be a challenge in having > every country sign off on the same exact agreement (which they didn't > negotiated) with ICANN, but if that works then more power to ICANN. > > Agreed, the benefit has to be looked at from both directions... I believe > the > underlying concept is that ICANN, through the AoC, has offered to be > externally > accountable to at least one government (USG), potentially to others > (although > I can't readily find a clean reference from ICANN of such an offer - > hmm...) > > Right now, governments (other than USG) have no direct commitment from > ICANN on these principles, and it might be useful for them to have such, > either individually entered or collectively (e.g. the EU could be such a > party) > > > 2. Yes, I'm culprit for (implicitly) lumping the AoC and the notion of > the IANA Function... That is because I think it is also implicit in the > reasoning people make when they think of USG as holding a privileged or > exclusive position (above the "equal footing" level, so to speak) over > ICANN and anything it does for fulfilling its mission. I'm not sure if > opening up the mechanism of the AoC (which as you clearly show focuses > mainly on the oversight of the commitments therein) to multiple governments > without any subsequent and related amendment to the IANA relationship > between ICANN and USG will completely that concern to rest. But again, if > that works... > > The USG has several unique roles, and I'd recommend considering the one > by one to determine if they need to remain unique. I do not believe that > the > oversight role needs to remain unique, as noted above and in prior email. > > If this oversight role were to be shared among several governments, then > one > of the items that could become a topic of these reviews is the existence > of the > IANA Function contract vis-a-vis ICANN's commitment in "ensuring > accountability, > transparency and the interests of global Internet users." I believe it > is safe to > say this is not as likely to arise if the only accountability to these > principles is > +1 Thanks for providing clarification and thoughtful arguments. Mawaki > to the USG... > > > All that is open to discussion and I don't have any definite answer. > > Excellent discussion... thanks for sharing your thoughts! > /John > > p.s. (Regarding the role of "being the party issuing the IANA Function > Contract", > I'm not sure that is actually a necessary role... see this earlier > discussion > > on same) > > Disclaimers: My views alone. Contents may be flammable; keep away > from the spark of action or the flame of open > discussion... :-) > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Jun 3 12:37:43 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:37:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: In message <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B21FE01 at SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, at 14:51:05 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Lee W McKnight writes >Proper question is: Why should DRM on a Disney Movie download be baked >into html5? The ability for Disney to turn on DRM is a perfectly legitimate thing to be "baked in" as you say. Content providers who are DRM-refuseniks don't have to turn on DRM for their products, which will continue to be freely available. You might surmise that I don't think being prevented from stealing a Disney movie is very high up on my list of reasons to be sorry for someone developing Open Source software in a developing country. There are plenty of battles to fight, but this does not seem to me to be one of them. >Seeing as it is being baked in elsewhere, no need to feel sorry for >Mickey Mouse's..rights: > >http://www.rethink-wireless.com/2013/06/03/arm-bakes-drm-graphics-chips.htm > >Lee >________________________________________ >From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >[governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Roland Perry >[roland at internetpolicyagency.com] >Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:33 AM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Draft Statement #DRM HTML5/ was [Should the >IGC support Formal Objection by EFF?] #DRM in HTML5 > >In message >, at >14:08:55 on Mon, 3 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > writes >>Hi Roland, as at the end of the first para, "The inherent danger of the >>proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >>destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models." > >That merely restates my question. Why does DRM shut out those people who >would not use it anyway (eg the Open Source folks). > >Meanwhile, surely their innovation would be to distribute their own >world-class movies, without DRM (as well as the software they are more >normally known for). > >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >>> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >>> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >>> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >>> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities > > >> Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the >> Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work >> freely? > >-- >Roland Perry -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 3 14:49:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:19:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?B?VGhlIEJhbmFsaXR5IG9mIOKAmERvbuKAmXQgQmUg?= =?UTF-8?B?RXZpbOKAmQ==?= Message-ID: <51ACE538.2090207@itforchange.net> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality-of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?_r=0 Reading this article by Julian Assange, most people will be left with a gnawing feeling of deep concern and worry, but they may only be able to frown and fret helplessly about where the world seems headed. However, those among the Internet governance civil society will perhaps have to read it with a certain sense of introspection and political responsibility.... I think it is worth having a discussion in the IGC on this article, examining what needs the support of civil society and maybe what doesn't so much, assuming there is at least some significance to what Assange writes. Article also cut pastes below.... The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ By JULIAN ASSANGE “THE New Digital Age” is a startlingly clear and provocative blueprint for technocratic imperialism, from two of its leading witch doctors, Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, who construct a new idiom for United States global power in the 21st century. This idiom reflects the ever closer union between the State Department and Silicon Valley, as personified by Mr. Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google , and Mr. Cohen, a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton who is now director of Google Ideas. The authors met in occupied Baghdad in 2009, when the book was conceived. Strolling among the ruins, the two became excited that consumer technology was transforming a society flattened by United States military occupation. They decided the tech industry could be a powerful agent of American foreign policy. The book proselytizes the role of technology in reshaping the world’s people and nations into likenesses of the world’s dominant superpower, whether they want to be reshaped or not. The prose is terse, the argument confident and the wisdom — banal. But this isn’t a book designed to be read. It is a major declaration designed to foster alliances. “The New Digital Age” is, beyond anything else, an attempt by Google to position itself as America’s geopolitical visionary — the one company that can answer the question “Where should America go?” It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world’s most famous warmongers has been trotted out to give its stamp of approval to this enticement to Western soft power. The acknowledgments give pride of place to Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book. In the book the authors happily take up the white geek’s burden. A liberal sprinkling of convenient, hypothetical dark-skinned worthies appear: Congolese fisherwomen, graphic designers in Botswana, anticorruption activists in San Salvador and illiterate Masai cattle herders in the Serengeti are all obediently summoned to demonstrate the progressive properties of Google phones jacked into the informational supply chain of the Western empire. The authors offer an expertly banalized version of tomorrow’s world: the gadgetry of decades hence is predicted to be much like what we have right now — only cooler. “Progress” is driven by the inexorable spread of American consumer technology over the surface of the earth. Already, every day, another million or so Google-run mobile devices are activated. Google will interpose itself, and hence the United States government, between the communications of every human being not in China (naughty China). Commodities just become more marvelous; young, urban professionals sleep, work and shop with greater ease and comfort; democracy is insidiously subverted by technologies of surveillance, and control is enthusiastically rebranded as “participation”; and our present world order of systematized domination, intimidation and oppression continues, unmentioned, unafflicted or only faintly perturbed. The authors are sour about the Egyptian triumph of 2011. They dismiss the Egyptian youth witheringly, claiming that “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.” Digitally inspired mobs mean revolutions will be “easier to start” but “harder to finish.” Because of the absence of strong leaders, the result, or so Mr. Kissinger tells the authors, will be coalition governments that descend into autocracies. They say there will be “no more springs” (but China is on the ropes). The authors fantasize about the future of “well resourced” revolutionary groups. A new “crop of consultants” will “use data to build and fine-tune a political figure.” “His” speeches (the future isn’t all that different) and writing will be fed “through complex feature-extraction and trend-analysis software suites” while “mapping his brain function,” and other “sophisticated diagnostics” will be used to “assess the weak parts of his political repertoire.” The book mirrors State Department institutional taboos and obsessions. It avoids meaningful criticism of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It pretends, quite extraordinarily, that the Latin American sovereignty movement, which has liberated so many from United States-backed plutocracies and dictatorships over the last 30 years, never happened. Referring instead to the region’s “aging leaders,” the book can’t see Latin America for Cuba. And, of course, the book frets theatrically over Washington’s favorite boogeymen: North Korea and Iran. Google, which started out as an expression of independent Californian graduate student culture — a decent, humane and playful culture — has, as it encountered the big, bad world, thrown its lot in with traditional Washington power elements, from the State Department to the National Security Agency. Despite accounting for an infinitesimal fraction of violent deaths globally, terrorism is a favorite brand in United States policy circles. This is a fetish that must also be catered to, and so “The Future of Terrorism” gets a whole chapter. The future of terrorism, we learn, is cyberterrorism. A session of indulgent scaremongering follows, including a breathless disaster-movie scenario, wherein cyberterrorists take control of American air-traffic control systems and send planes crashing into buildings, shutting down power grids and launching nuclear weapons. The authors then tar activists who engage in digital sit-ins with the same brush. I have a very different perspective. The advance of information technology epitomized by Google heralds the death of privacy for most people and shifts the world toward authoritarianism. This is the principal thesis in my book, “Cypherpunks.” But while Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Cohen tell us that the death of privacy will aid governments in “repressive autocracies” in “targeting their citizens,” they also say governments in “open” democracies will see it as “a gift” enabling them to “better respond to citizen and customer concerns.” In reality, the erosion of individual privacy in the West and the attendant centralization of power make abuses inevitable, moving the “good” societies closer to the “bad” ones. The section on “repressive autocracies” describes, disapprovingly, various repressive surveillance measures: legislation to insert back doors into software to enable spying on citizens, monitoring of social networks and the collection of intelligence on entire populations. All of these are already in widespread use in the United States. In fact, some of those measures — like the push to require every social-network profile to be linked to a real name — were spearheaded by Google itself. THE writing is on the wall, but the authors cannot see it. They borrow from William Dobson the idea that the media, in an autocracy, “allows for an opposition press as long as regime opponents understand where the unspoken limits are.” But these trends are beginning to emerge in the United States. No one doubts the chilling effects of the investigations into The Associated Press and Fox’s James Rosen. But there has been little analysis of Google’s role in complying with the Rosen subpoena. I have personal experience of these trends. The Department of Justice admitted in March that it was in its third year of a continuing criminal investigation of WikiLeaks. Court testimony states that its targets include “the founders, owners, or managers of WikiLeaks.” One alleged source, Bradley Manning, faces a 12-week trial beginning tomorrow, with 24 prosecution witnesses expected to testify in secret. This book is a balefully seminal work in which neither author has the language to see, much less to express, the titanic centralizing evil they are constructing. “What Lockheed Martin was to the 20th century,” they tell us, “technology and cybersecurity companies will be to the 21st.” Without even understanding how, they have updated and seamlessly implemented George Orwell’s prophecy. If you want a vision of the future, imagine Washington-backed Google Glasses strapped onto vacant human faces — forever. Zealots of the cult of consumer technology will find little to inspire them here, not that they ever seem to need it. But this is essential reading for anyone caught up in the struggle for the future, in view of one simple imperative: Know your enemy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 4 18:00:29 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (riaz.tayob at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 01:00:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> > June 2, 2013 7:01 pm > > Obama’s faith in the geek elite who have your secrets > > By Edward Luce > > Self-interest guides the Big Data companies, and the same is often true of the White House > ©Matt Kenyon > On Monday, Barack Obama’s administration begins its court martial of Bradley Manning, the former US army private who uploaded hundreds of thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Reasonable people disagree on whether Mr Manning “aided the enemy” (as President Obama’s prosecutors allege) or is a hero for helping to educate us about Washington’s shadowy drone programme. Most are surprised the White House is demanding a life sentence four years after putting Mr Manning behind bars. In their view, Mr Obama is a self-confessed geek with Silicon Valley’s transparent “Do no evil” values. Yet he regularly betrays these with his “Nixonian” mania for secrecy. > > Such concerns are charmingly naive: Mr Obama is no traitor to geek culture. His administration shares many of the faults and virtues of the Silicon Valley leaders to whom it is so closely allied. Mr Manning’s prosecution begins three days after the White House co-hosted its second “We the Geeks” conference with Google. This Thursday, Mr Obama will attend a fundraiser at the home of Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most celebrated venture capital geeks. And in the coming months the White House will be pushing for Congress to pass immigration reform – alongside a newly-created lobby group founded by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook. This controversial outfit is called Forward (Fwd.us), which was also the slogan of Mr Obama’s 2012 campaign. > > One of the geekocracy’s main characteristics is a serene faith in its own good motives. It is not hard to imagine how much greater the US left’s outrage would be over the drone programme were it carried out by George W. Bush or Mitt Romney. When Mr Obama asks Americans to trust that he evaluates every target on his “kill list”, most acquiesce. That pass is also extended to Mr Obama’s “signature strikes”, which select targets by probability based on often sketchy information. But there is a world of difference between zapping a known target and taking an educated guess. It is hard to avoid the suspicion that Mr Obama’s reputation for being a nerd shields him from tougher criticism. Call it geek exceptionalism. To his credit, Mr Obama conveyed last month that he shares much of this disquiet in a lapidary address on counterterrorism. > > If signature strikes – attacking suspected terrorists before they can act – are the stuff of the film Minority Report’s “pre-crimes”, the Obama campaign’s brilliant use of demographic data is about “pre-votes”. His data team has aggregated more detail about individual preferences than most voters know about themselves. Mr Obama is likely to use his database as a bargaining tool to help secure his legacy after 2016 (whoever is the Democratic nominee will need it to win). It is no coincidence this resembles the growing ingenuity with which Facebook, and other social media, cull their users’ personal information. Mr Obama’s operation was partly designed by Silicon Valley techies. The Obama administration is also a strong ally of Google, Facebook and others in pushing against Europe’s moves towards far stronger data privacy rights. France’s so-called “right to be forgotten” sparks as much derision in Washington as it does in San Francisco. “Trust us,” say the geeks. “We have noble motives.” > > The reality is more mundane. Self-interest, rather than virtue, guides the growing clout of these “Big Data” companies in Washington. The same is often true of Mr Obama. Big data’s agenda is not confined to immigration reform. Among other areas, it has a deep interest in shaping what Washington does on privacy, online education, the school system, the internet, corporate tax reform, cyber security and even cyber warfare. Big data is also likely to be influential in the US-European trade partnership talks, which start this month. Whether the sector becomes a thorn in the side of the process remains to be seen. Either way, Americans should be relieved someone is making the case for privacy. “I don’t say this often but I think the Europeans are on the right side of the data protection issue,” says Tyler Cowen, a leading libertarian economist. > > For while big data brings innovation, it also has dangerous side effects. Culture is already pushing Americans towards “data nudism”. Such currents will only get more acute. Before long, it will be possible to map an individual’s genetic sequencing at an affordable price. No one will be forced to attach their genetic record to online dating profiles. But potential mates may assume that anyone who chooses not to is concealing a genetic disorder. > > America’s middle classes are already in thrall to their often capricious credit scores – a determination that is notoriously hard to correct. In a world where the average home will have hundreds of sensors, and where ubiquitous tracking systems can intimately map an individual’s habits, the right to privacy could become an economic tool of survival. Already, US employers often demand a credit score, a drugs test and fingerprinting from many kinds of applicant. In the new digital world, the right to expunge past blemishes may turn into a rumbling civil struggle. > > Should such futurology bother Mr Obama? Yes. A century ago, Theodore Roosevelt pushed back against the power of the rail barons and oil titans – the great technological disrupters of his day. Mr Obama should pay closer heed to history. And he should become wary of geeks bearing gifts. > > edward.luce at ft.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 4 18:13:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 00:13:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever current state that you find unacceptable --srs (htc one x) On 5 June 2013 12:00:29 AM riaz.tayob at gmail.com wrote: > > > June 2, 2013 7:01 pm > > Obama’s faith in the geek elite who have your secrets > > By Edward Luce > > Self-interest guides the Big Data companies, and the same is often true > of the White House > > ©Matt Kenyon > > On Monday, Barack Obama’s administration begins its court martial of > Bradley Manning, the former US army private who uploaded hundreds of > thousands of classified documents to WikiLeaks. Reasonable people disagree > on whether Mr Manning “aided the enemy” (as President Obama’s prosecutors > allege) or is a hero for helping to educate us about Washington’s shadowy > drone programme. Most are surprised the White House is demanding a life > sentence four years after putting Mr Manning behind bars. In their view, Mr > Obama is a self-confessed geek with Silicon Valley’s transparent “Do no > evil” values. Yet he regularly betrays these with his “Nixonian” mania for > secrecy. > > Such concerns are charmingly naive: Mr Obama is no traitor to geek > culture. His administration shares many of the faults and virtues of the > Silicon Valley leaders to whom it is so closely allied. Mr Manning’s > prosecution begins three days after the White House co-hosted its second > “We the Geeks” conference with Google. This Thursday, Mr Obama will attend > a fundraiser at the home of Vinod Khosla, one of Silicon Valley’s most > celebrated venture capital geeks. And in the coming months the White House > will be pushing for Congress to pass immigration reform – alongside a > newly-created lobby group founded by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive > of Facebook. This controversial outfit is called Forward (Fwd.us), which > was also the slogan of Mr Obama’s 2012 campaign. > > One of the geekocracy’s main characteristics is a serene faith in its own > good motives. It is not hard to imagine how much greater the US left’s > outrage would be over the drone programme were it carried out by George W. > Bush or Mitt Romney. When Mr Obama asks Americans to trust that he > evaluates every target on his “kill list”, most acquiesce. That pass is > also extended to Mr Obama’s “signature strikes”, which select targets by > probability based on often sketchy information. But there is a world of > difference between zapping a known target and taking an educated guess. It > is hard to avoid the suspicion that Mr Obama’s reputation for being a nerd > shields him from tougher criticism. Call it geek exceptionalism. To his > credit, Mr Obama conveyed last month that he shares much of this disquiet > in a lapidary address on counterterrorism. > > If signature strikes – attacking suspected terrorists before they can act > – are the stuff of the film Minority Report’s “pre-crimes”, the Obama > campaign’s brilliant use of demographic data is about “pre-votes”. His data > team has aggregated more detail about individual preferences than most > voters know about themselves. Mr Obama is likely to use his database as a > bargaining tool to help secure his legacy after 2016 (whoever is the > Democratic nominee will need it to win). It is no coincidence this > resembles the growing ingenuity with which Facebook, and other social > media, cull their users’ personal information. Mr Obama’s operation was > partly designed by Silicon Valley techies. The Obama administration is also > a strong ally of Google, Facebook and others in pushing against Europe’s > moves towards far stronger data privacy rights. France’s so-called “right > to be forgotten” sparks as much derision in Washington as it does in San > Francisco. “Trust us,” say the geeks. “We have noble motives.” > > The reality is more mundane. Self-interest, rather than virtue, guides > the growing clout of these “Big Data” companies in Washington. The same is > often true of Mr Obama. Big data’s agenda is not confined to immigration > reform. Among other areas, it has a deep interest in shaping what > Washington does on privacy, online education, the school system, the > internet, corporate tax reform, cyber security and even cyber warfare. Big > data is also likely to be influential in the US-European trade partnership > talks, which start this month. Whether the sector becomes a thorn in the > side of the process remains to be seen. Either way, Americans should be > relieved someone is making the case for privacy. “I don’t say this often > but I think the Europeans are on the right side of the data protection > issue,” says Tyler Cowen, a leading libertarian economist. > > For while big data brings innovation, it also has dangerous side effects. > Culture is already pushing Americans towards “data nudism”. Such currents > will only get more acute. Before long, it will be possible to map an > individual’s genetic sequencing at an affordable price. No one will be > forced to attach their genetic record to online dating profiles. But > potential mates may assume that anyone who chooses not to is concealing a > genetic disorder. > > America’s middle classes are already in thrall to their often capricious > credit scores – a determination that is notoriously hard to correct. In a > world where the average home will have hundreds of sensors, and where > ubiquitous tracking systems can intimately map an individual’s habits, the > right to privacy could become an economic tool of survival. Already, US > employers often demand a credit score, a drugs test and fingerprinting from > many kinds of applicant. In the new digital world, the right to expunge > past blemishes may turn into a rumbling civil struggle. > > Should such futurology bother Mr Obama? Yes. A century ago, Theodore > Roosevelt pushed back against the power of the rail barons and oil titans – > the great technological disrupters of his day. Mr Obama should pay closer > heed to history. And he should become wary of geeks bearing gifts. > > edward.luce at ft.com > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 4 22:11:33 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:11:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> On 05/06/13 06:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? > > Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities > doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever > current state that you find unacceptable > I found it useful, thanks Riaz for forwarding it. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 5 02:56:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 08:56:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Tangential - Obama's faith in geek elites, who have your secrets In-Reply-To: <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> References: <51ACCEC6.4080308@bluewin.ch> <1C0C725A-ADEF-4695-989D-897E697ABC9D@gmail.com> <13f1140c7e9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51AE9E55.3070104@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <13f13151336.27a2.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Chacun a son gout. Sorry for not including accented characters, I haven't figured out this tablet keyboard yet. --srs On June 5, 2013 4:11:33 AM Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 05/06/13 06:13, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > Just how much do you know them, riaz, to forward this generalization? > > > > Blindly recycling articles that are couched in over broad generalities > > doesn't quite facilitate any discussion or any change from whatever > > current state that you find unacceptable > > > > I found it useful, thanks Riaz for forwarding it. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* > http://consint.info/RightsMission > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Wed Jun 5 08:08:00 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 08:08:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire References: <047301ce6155$7196b660$54c42320$@ch> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Peter Major > Subject: FW: CSTD WGEC draft questionnaire > Date: 4 June 2013 14:58:03 EDT > To: WGEC at LIST.UNICC.ORG > Reply-To: UN CSTD Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation > > Dear Participants, > > Please find attached the draft questionnaire we agreed on during our meeting > on 30-31 May 2013. I added as first question related to stakeholder group as > was suggested by the group. I kindly ask you to provide your comments on the > questionnaire related to format and editorial aspects, but not on > substantial points. In order to proceed the way we anticipated in our > meeting please send your comments until the 15 June 2013 to the mailing > list, the Secretariat and to me. > > During the meeting you also agreed that on practical aspects of > accreditation of observers and modalities of participation the Chair would > decide after consultation with the Secretariat. I seek your view and > suggestion on this issue as well as on handling responses to the > questionnaire. > > > Best regards, > > Peter -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Questionnaire.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 41215 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Jun 5 08:43:06 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 14:43:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council: New LaRue report on government surveillance online Message-ID: Dear Governance list peeps, For those of you who didn't see it, the HRC received a new report from special rapporteur LaRue this week: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression "... analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating these practices in line with human rights standards." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 08:56:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 00:56:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights Council: New LaRue report on government surveillance online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Nick, for scooping this, great to know On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Governance list peeps, > > For those of you who didn't see it, the HRC received a new report from > special rapporteur LaRue this week: > > Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the > right to freedom of opinion and expression > > "... analyses the implications of States’ surveillance of communications > on the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion > and expression. While considering the impact of significant technological > advances in communications, the report underlines the urgent need to > further study new modalities of surveillance and to revise national laws regulating > these practices in line with human rights standards." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 10:50:36 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:50:36 +1200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 Message-ID: Dear All, Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Objection to the Inclusion of Digital Rights Management with Comments.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36352 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:09:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:09:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] Message-ID: Dear All, Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to choose from. Thank you. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From amessinoukossi at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:17:47 2013 From: amessinoukossi at gmail.com (Kossi Amessinou) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 16:17:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, We can not destroy the use of innovation among young people in developing countries by the standard introduction of further restrictions in the environment of the web and mobile web. I am confident that the initiative is not aimed at a targeted restriction friends that can give this interpretation. For that reasons, i suggest the W3C to revise its copy. 2013/6/5 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first > version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This > is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would > be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > issues for your deliberation would be:- > > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. > > *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to > shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and lock in legacy business models. > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the > resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support > for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments > in this regard. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- AMESSINOU Kossi Ingénieur des TIC ICT Engineer Contact: 00229 95 19 67 02 skype: amessinou @amessinou @bigf Que Dieu vous bénisse Je suis un serviteur de celui qui est, qui était et qui vient, pour la gloire de notre DIEU au milieu des HOMMES. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:42:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:42:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?New_book_in_French=3A_=22Nains_sans_g?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9ants_Architecture_d=E9centralis=E9e_et_services_Interne?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t=22?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Francesca Musiani Date: Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM Subject: [berkmanfriends] New book in French: "Nains sans géants Architecture décentralisée et services Internet" To: Berkman Friends Dear Berkfriends, For the French readers among you, today's release of my book may be of interest. Waiting for the English version... :) http://www.pressesdesmines.com/nains-sans-geants.html Kind regards, Francesca The cover blurb roughly translates as: Dwarfs Without Giants: Decentralized Network Architectures and Internet-based Services Francesca Musiani With a Preface by Geoffrey C. Bowker Decentralization is central to the genesis of the Internet, whose primary objective was indeed to enable communication between heterogeneous and remote machines, without mandatory transit points. Today, concentrationmodels dominate, around a handful of macro-actors - *giants* equipped withextensiveserver farms, managingthe most part of Internet traffic . However, the original principle has not been entirely abandoned, and in all areas of application, developers explore decentralized alternatives. These * dwarfs *go on to form search engines, social networks, storage spaces that allocate resources and tasks equally between members of the network. This book explores decentralized approaches to Internet services, and investigates the organizational forms they propose: it shows how a network that distributes the responsibility of its operation to the edges, and organizes according to a non-hierarchical or hybrid model, may develop in the highly-constrained contemporary Internet. The operation of such systems raises questions of market organization, technical efficiency, economic sustainability, but also of privacy protection and regulation of personal information. As Geoffrey Bowker argues in his introduction, this volume ultimately suggests that we need to approach the study of Internet governance in new ways, and highlights how, to understand this key socio-technical issue of our time, we need to analyze possible alternatives to the current modes of operation of the "network of networks". In a detailed and informed manner, this is precisely what "Dwarfs without giants" achieves. -- Francesca Musiani, PhD 2012-13 Yahoo! Fellow in Residence Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service Georgetown University 1316 36th Street NW Washington, DC 20057-1025 CSI, MINES ParisTech | ANR ADAM project Berkman Center for Internet and Society ESN-IAMCR | GigaNet Personal website | Twitter ---------- -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 11:56:55 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 11:56:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: fyi, via bestbit's list http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti , Internet , WTPF-13 [image: wtpf-13-blog] The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet Governance. Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low level of participation of the majority of governments in existing international Internet Governance fora. In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14) . Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. * [image: cavalcanti]By Daniel B. Cavalcanti* *Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues.* -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:24:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:24:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I've commented (twice now actually). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > > > fyi, via bestbit's list > > > > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ > > OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE > > June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13 > > The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a unique > opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the > international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the > participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet > Governance. > > Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to > Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a vibrant > organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to the > WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the > Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international > level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of > governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. > > The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role > in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the > decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long > standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little > impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct interest. > Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low > level of participation of the majority of governments in existing > international Internet Governance fora. > > In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the > fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the role > of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, and > the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, > particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the ITU. > > Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government > in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one > previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had resulted > from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the > participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. > > During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive > consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, sector > members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a > genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the > draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. > > The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from > Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. > Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at the > WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the > importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in > further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. > > The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, > that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group on > Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of > deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further > consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues in > the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication Development > Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14). > > Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to > forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as the > WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a way > forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications that > in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of > those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and engaging > them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who > aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. > > > By Daniel B. Cavalcanti > > Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the > Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National > Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has > focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues. > > > > -- > Carolina Rossini > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jun 5 12:32:56 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 18:32:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 5 12:40:10 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 01:40:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked very well 'til now. Thank you. Adam On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >> on the revised statement. > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 12:44:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:44:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. I agree. I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. If we are going to use a "workspace" let's make it an editable wiki. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 5 12:57:16 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 12:57:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. OTT? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:00:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:00:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? Over The Top. It reads like a bad teenage polemic. "kill innovation" (demonstrably false) , "serious violation of human rights" (seriously), "destroy interoperability" (also demonstrably false), etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 5 13:05:57 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 02:05:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: How about: Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: The cs igc supports the eff statement https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg END If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML and WG and DRM Adam On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:11:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:11:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: Adam's formulation works for me....with the caveat that "stifle" only has one F ;-) On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: >> >>> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. >> >> >> OTT? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 5 13:15:40 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:15:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: havent read this closely as I am travelling but I have to agree with McTim. The sentiment is good but language is unfortunate. instead of "kill innovation", maybe "create difficulties for innovation" instead of "destroy interoperability", maybe "have a detrimental effect on interoperability" maybe drop human rights altogether and just refer to "serious difficulties in the intellectual property area" (and perhaps elaborate on why a standard could be used in a world of great confusion as regards patents, patentability and copyright law to limit creativity and create unfortunate precedents). Ian -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:00 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > OTT? Over The Top. It reads like a bad teenage polemic. "kill innovation" (demonstrably false) , "serious violation of human rights" (seriously), "destroy interoperability" (also demonstrably false), etc. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 5 13:16:58 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 03:16:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: or Adam's words (our postings crossed) -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 3:11 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Adam Peake Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 Adam's formulation works for me....with the caveat that "stifle" only has one F ;-) On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: >> >>> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. >> >> >> OTT? >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 13:29:20 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 13:29:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Anatel blog post: Operationalizing the role of governments in internet governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I just watched the 7 minutes interview that is available. More issues there, then in the post... On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:24 PM, McTim wrote: > I've commented (twice now actually). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > > > > > fyi, via bestbit's list > > > > > > > > > > > http://itu4u.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/operationalizing-the-role-of-governments-in-internet-governance/ > > > > OPERATIONALIZING THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENTS IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE > > > > June 5, 2013 · by itu4u · in Daniel Cavalcanti, Internet, WTPF-13 > > > > The World Telecommunication/ICT Policy Forum (WTPF-2013) provided a > unique > > opportunity to put Internet-related public policy issues firmly on the > > international agenda, particularly the very present issue of the > > participation of governments as relevant stakeholders in Internet > > Governance. > > > > Brazil is a country that fully embraces the multistakeholder approach to > > Internet Governance. Our National Internet Steering Committee is a > vibrant > > organization, as indeed highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Report to > the > > WTPF, which includes a reference to Brazil’s ten “Principles for the > > Governance and Use of the Internet”. Nonetheless, at the international > > level, our view is that we still need to achieve full engagement of > > governments in the decision making process on Internet Governance. > > > > The fact is that governments so far have only had a limited advisory role > > in international Internet Governance, and no actual involvement in the > > decision making process. Recent events have indicated that even long > > standing advice provided by governments on certain issues has had little > > impact on the actual decisions relating to matters of their direct > interest. > > Regretfully, attempts to deal with this fact have suffered from the low > > level of participation of the majority of governments in existing > > international Internet Governance fora. > > > > In this regard Brazil presented at the WTPF an opinion that points to the > > fact that we must together address two key issues: operationalizing the > role > > of government in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance, > and > > the need for capacity building on these issues in developing countries, > > particularly in the least developed countries, with the support of the > ITU. > > > > Brazil´s draft opinion entitled “Operationalizing the role of government > > in the multistakeholder framework for Internet Governance” stems from one > > previously discussed at the Informal Experts Group (IEG), which had > resulted > > from the joint work of the drafting group led by Brazil, with the > > participation of a diverse group of experts from several countries. > > > > During the course of the WTPF, Brazil conducted further extensive > > consultations with all interested parties, including Member States, > sector > > members and civil society entities present at the event. As a result of a > > genuine effort to reflect the inputs received, a revised version of the > > draft opinion was presented, which we expected could have been endorsed. > > > > The draft opinion received widespread support, including statements from > > Member States in all ITU regions, as seen during the plenary sessions. > > Despite this fact, in the end the opinion did not achieve consensus at > the > > WTPF. Nonetheless, we did receive very positive feedback as to the > > importance of the issues that were raised, and a willingness to engage in > > further discussions, having Brazil as the focal point. > > > > The final report by the Chairman of the WTPF indicates, as a way forward, > > that these discussions could take place at the ITU Council Working Group > on > > Internet-related public policy issues. Subsequently the output of > > deliberations would be forwarded to the ITU Council for further > > consideration. Hopefully this would lead to the inclusion of the issues > in > > the preparatory process for the upcoming World Telecommunication > Development > > Conference (WTDC-14) and the Plenipotentiary Conference of 2014 (PP-14). > > > > Brazil also welcomes the broadening of the discussion on these issues to > > forums such as the GAC, the CSTD, ECOSOC and the IGF. Interestingly, as > the > > WTPF drew to a close with a clear message from the ITU membership and a > way > > forward proposed by the leadership of the Union, there were indications > that > > in the near future these very same issues will also be on the agendas of > > those other forums. Ensuring a meaningful role for governments and > engaging > > them in the decision making process is in the interest of all those who > > aspire to a truly multistakeholder international Internet Governance. > > > > > > By Daniel B. Cavalcanti > > > > Daniel B. Cavalcanti is an Engineer and career professional with the > > Brazilian Government, currently a senior Policy Advisor at the National > > Telecommunications Agency – Anatel. Over the last decade his work has > > focused on broadband policy and Internet related issues. > > > > > > > > -- > > Carolina Rossini > > http://carolinarossini.net/ > > + 1 6176979389 > > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > > skype: carolrossini > > @carolinarossini > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 14:55:56 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 06:55:56 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:40 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. > > Thank you. > > Adam > > We can keep the email for discussions etc but comments on draft text should really go to the statement workspace as there is dedicated space for it and it allows people to easily see, specific comments on statements rather than waiting for the coordinators to compile into a document because sometimes comments are made on aspects which could be misinterpreted or misdirected. The workspace allows for dedicated bandwidth. > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > phrases. I > >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >> on the revised statement. > > > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 15:30:38 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:30:38 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first > version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This > is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would > be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > issues for your deliberation would be:- > > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I > have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > on the revised statement. > > *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > the planet. > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to > shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and lock in legacy business models. > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with > serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the > resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support > for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments > in this regard. > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 5 22:14:51 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:44:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC Coordinator [End of 2013 -2015] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I nominate Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro for a repeat term. On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > Noting that we are in the mid- year of 2013, for those interested in > standing in the co-Coordinator elections or if you feel like would like to > nominate someone, this would be a good time to start thinking about it. So > that when the time comes to call for Nominees, we have a pool of people to > choose from. > > Thank you. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Jun 6 00:18:50 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:18:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <8AD6A1DA-3578-40B2-A2C5-72318CDE8DCE@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130606041850.GC10180@tarvainen.info> I like Adam's formulation. -- Tapani Tarvainen On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 02:05:57AM +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > How about: > > Delete paragraphs one and two. Then: > > The cs igc supports the eff statement > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > [will] HAS THE POTENTIAL TO [kill] STIFFLE innovation and we > [strongly] object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > in HTML5. > > [We believe that will kill innovation and strongly object to the > inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5.] (repetition) > We [would also like to reiterate that we] fully endorse the arguments > raised [within the objection [1] raised] by the EFF IN THEIR STATEMENT > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg > > END > > If inside square brackets delete, if caps it's new text (except HTML > and WG and DRM > > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > On 5 Jun 2013, at 12:44, McTim wrote: > > > >> I've just made 2 comments on this completely OTT statement. > > > > > > OTT? > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Jun 6 04:52:48 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 17:52:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sala, To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? A cleaned up version of a short statement: The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. Adam On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear All, > > Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > > Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. > > What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- > What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. > Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. > > > > We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. > > > > Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > > For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Thu Jun 6 07:12:56 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 07:12:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> I support sending this statement. avri On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. Indeed, lets just support them. > > Adam > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 6 07:24:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:24:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: <13f193abf1e.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I agree with a short and non pontificating note of support such as the below --srs (htc one x) On 6 June 2013 1:12:56 PM Avri Doria wrote: > I support sending this statement. > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find > that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Indeed, lets just support them. > > > > Adam > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 07:51:43 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 04:51:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, name's Simon, just joined and hoping to learn and contribute a great deal. I'm counting on you to point me in the right direction. Thanks On Jun 5, 2013 4:40 PM, "Adam Peake" wrote: > Could we please continue to use email to track comments. Has worked > very well 'til now. > > Thank you. > > Adam > > > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > phrases. I > >> have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course > >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >> on the revised statement. > > > > Online now at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Thu Jun 6 08:00:38 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:00:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> +1 On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > I support sending this statement. > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > > Hi Sala, > > > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > > > > > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Indeed, lets just support them. > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From soekpe at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 08:19:39 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 13:19:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I strongly support the simplification of Adams Peake's submission. Brief and straight to the point. Thank you. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 6, 2013 9:53 AM, "Adam Peake" wrote: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 08:58:28 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 08:58:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> References: <6011CAE7-77C9-44AD-A3D6-D805729FDF7B@acm.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 7:12 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > I support sending this statement. +1 > > > avri > > > On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 6 09:35:14 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:35:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 02:50:36 on Thu, 6 Jun 2013, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro writes >Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >discussion. What I don't understand (to use a bricks-and-mortar analogy, and I've never believed that "online" was fundamentally not part of the real world) is why having to pay $50 [which I have] to see a performance of Starlight Express on Broadway means that my local brass band[1] is somehow prevented from giving a performance in the park on a Sunday afternoon, completely free of charge. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass_band#British-style -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From andersj at elon.edu Thu Jun 6 10:08:46 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:08:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > >-- >Tapani Tarvainen > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nomagean at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 6 10:17:05 2013 From: nomagean at yahoo.co.uk (nomsa muswai) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:17:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> +1 Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content on the letter .   Best Regards Nomsa Muswai ________________________________ From: Janna Anderson To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter:  @JannaQ  https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain.  In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself.  See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > >-- >Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 10:42:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:42:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens Message-ID: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> [Anti-American or anti-Democratic? China makes no bones about its political system, but this is done in the name of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... secret courts, war crime whistle-blowers without the audacity of hope... Paging Franz Kafka, Frans Kafka please pick up the white telephones located in the lobby... ] White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens Tyler Durden's picture Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/06/2013 09:44 -0400 Blink and you have likely missed Obama's latest Watergate moment, this time following the disclosure that the White House has instructed the NSA to collect millions of daily phone records from Verizon (and likely all other carriers). What is surprising to us is that this is even news. We reported on /just this/ in March of 2012 with "We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013 " and then again in April 2012 "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Live: "The Government Is Lying To You " using an NSA whistleblower as a source. Still, no matter the distribution platform, it is a welcome development for the majority of the population to know that the same Stazi tactics so loathed for decades in the fringes of the "evil empire" are now a daily occurrence under the "most transparent administration in history." This is especially true in the aftermath of the recent media scandals involving the soon to be former Attorney General. So what was the latest largely regurgitated news? Overnight te Guardian's Glenn Greenwald reports that the "NSA is collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily" following a "top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama." Some more from the Guardian : The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and other countries. The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected indiscriminately and in bulk -- regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversation itself are not covered. The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers. *No it won't*. Because those who care, have known about this for a long, long time. Everyone else... well, they have their soaring 401(k)s to comfort them, sprinkled in with a little class warfare to keep things "fair", and of course Dancing with the Stars. Finally, the White House was quick to explain why living in a crypto-fascist, totalitarian state is the New Normal: *it's for your own good, *you see. >From Reuters : *The Obama administration on Thursday acknowledged that it is collecting a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier, reopening the debate over privacy even as it defended the practice as necessary to protect Americans against attack. * The admission comes after the Guardian newspaper published a secret court order related to the records of millions of Verizon Communications customers on its website on Wednesday. A senior administration official said the court order pertains only to data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the subscribers' identities or the content of the telephone calls. Such information is "a critical tool in protecting the nation from terrorist threats to the United States," the official said, speaking on the condition of not being named. "It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States," the official added. The revelation raises fresh concerns about President Barack Obama's handling of privacy and free speech issues. His administration is already under fire for searching Associated Press journalists' calling records and the emails of a Fox television reporter as part of its inquiries into leaked government information. It was not immediately clear whether the practice extends to other carriers. It does. But what is most stunning in all of this is that the benevolent rulers who are here to "help us" have not made selling of any security illegal and punishable by death. Yet. Average: 4.733335 Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (15 votes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Thu Jun 6 11:08:08 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:08:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of nomsa muswai [nomagean at yahoo.co.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content on the letter . Best Regards Nomsa Muswai ________________________________ From: Janna Anderson To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Sent: Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 Subject: Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" > wrote: >+1 > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org) wrote: > >> I support sending this statement. >> >> >> avri >> >> >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> > Hi Sala, >> > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. >> >> >> > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> >> > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Indeed, lets just support them. >> >> >> > >> > Adam >> > >> > >> >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > >-- >Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From katitza at eff.org Thu Jun 6 11:26:39 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 11:26:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <51B0AA2F.3050205@eff.org> +1 and many thanks all On 6/6/13 11:08 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of nomsa muswai > [nomagean at yahoo.co.uk] > *Sent:* Thursday, June 06, 2013 10:17 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > +1 > > Have been following this discussion and i agree with the exact content > on the letter . > Best Regards > Nomsa Muswai > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Janna Anderson > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > *Sent:* Thursday, 6 June 2013, 16:08 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > +1 > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director, Imagining the Internet Center > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > > > Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson > Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson > > > > > > On 6/6/13 8:00 AM, "Tapani Tarvainen" > wrote: > > >+1 > > > >On Jun 06 07:12, Avri Doria (avri at acm.org ) wrote: > > > >> I support sending this statement. > >> > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 6 Jun 2013, at 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> > Hi Sala, > >> > > >> > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate > >>site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > >>Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ > page, how > >>many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >> > >> as the website does not allow for editing, but only for commenting, I > >>find that tool inadequate to IGC statement creation purposes. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>Foundation (EFF) > >> > >> > > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > >>speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >> > >> Indeed, lets just support them. > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Adam > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > >-- > >Tapani Tarvainen > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Thu Jun 6 11:30:18 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 15:30:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> ,<1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: After carefully considering all of the points made on this mailing list, via personal research, and by talking to people whom I consider experts on this I endorse the statement below. Kerry Brown >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >> > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 6 11:59:07 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 11:59:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <20130606120038.GI8973@thorion.it.jyu.fi> <1370528225.522.YahooMailNeo@web133205.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B220583@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > After carefully considering all of the points made on this mailing list, > via personal research, and by talking to people whom I consider experts on > this I endorse the statement below.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry Brown > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > >> > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>Foundation (EFF) > >> > >> > > >> > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >>has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >>digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> > > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Thu Jun 6 13:14:02 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:14:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> Hi, While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps > you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion > of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Adam > > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> comments and suggest text. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > > wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised >> the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the >> sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed >> reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual >> property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if >> we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's >> new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what >> the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course >> interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture >> every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement >> Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to >> comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached >> document is inherently messy. >> >> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend >> time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in >> HTML 5? >> >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >> mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon >> as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and >> this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >> >> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse >> and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic >> Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the >> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and >> block access to content for people across the planet. >> >> >> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat >> to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal >> would be to shut out open source developers and competition, >> destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >> >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, >> health and diverse content. In such regions, access to >> information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, >> but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >> >> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to >> the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with >> the EFF's arguments in this regard. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Jun 7 01:54:00 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:54:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Hi Catherine, Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? Best, Adam On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi, > > While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>> >>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>> >>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>> >>> >>> >>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>> >>> >>> >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>> >>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From pouzin at well.com Fri Jun 7 04:48:45 2013 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well)) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:48:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens In-Reply-To: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> References: <51B09FE6.6090206@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, This insidious spying business started in 2002. It was retroactively legalized with strong support by both Reps and Dems. The US press seems pretending it's news. This is just a classical way of installing a totalitarian regime, step by step, lie by lie. Louis - - - On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [Anti-American or anti-Democratic? China makes no bones about its > political system, but this is done in the name of life, liberty and the > pursuit of happiness... secret courts, war crime whistle-blowers without > the audacity of hope... Paging Franz Kafka, Frans Kafka please pick up the > white telephones located in the lobby... ] > White House Defends Its Wiretapping Of Millions Of US Citizens > [image: Tyler Durden's picture] > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/06/2013 09:44 -0400 > > > > Blink and you have likely missed Obama's latest Watergate moment, this > time following the disclosure that the White House has instructed the NSA > to collect millions of daily phone records from Verizon (and likely all > other carriers). What is surprising to us is that this is even news. We > reported on *just this* in March of 2012 with “We Are This Far From A > Turnkey Totalitarian State" - Big Brother Goes Live September 2013" > and then again in April 2012 "NSA Whistleblower Speaks Live: "The > Government Is Lying To You" > using an NSA whistleblower as a source. Still, no matter the distribution > platform, it is a welcome development for the majority of the population to > know that the same Stazi tactics so loathed for decades in the fringes of > the "evil empire" are now a daily occurrence under the "most transparent > administration in history." This is especially true in the aftermath of the > recent media scandals involving the soon to be former Attorney General. > > So what was the latest largely regurgitated news? Overnight te Guardian's > Glenn Greenwald reports that the "NSA is collecting phone records of > millions of Verizon customers daily" following a "top secret court order > requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic > surveillance under Obama." > > Some more from the Guardian > : > > The National Security Agency is currently collecting the telephone > records of millions of US customers of Verizon, one of America's largest > telecoms providers, under a top secret court order issued in April. > > > > The order, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, requires > Verizon on an "ongoing, daily basis" to give the NSA information on all > telephone calls in its systems, both within the US and between the US and > other countries. > > > > The document shows for the first time that under the Obama administration > the communication records of millions of US citizens are being collected > indiscriminately and in bulk – regardless of whether they are suspected of > any wrongdoing. > > > > The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Fisa) granted the > order to the FBI on April 25, giving the government unlimited authority to > obtain the data for a specified three-month period ending on July 19. > > > > Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on a > call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique > identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the > conversation itself are not covered. > > > > The disclosure is likely to reignite longstanding debates in the US over > the proper extent of the government's domestic spying powers. > > *No it won't*. Because those who care, have known about this for a long, > long time. Everyone else... well, they have their soaring 401(k)s to > comfort them, sprinkled in with a little class warfare to keep things > "fair", and of course Dancing with the Stars. > > Finally, the White House was quick to explain why living in a > crypto-fascist, totalitarian state is the New Normal: *it's for your own > good, *you see. > > From Reuters > : > > *The Obama administration on Thursday acknowledged that it is > collecting a massive amount of telephone records from at least one carrier, > reopening the debate over privacy even as it defended the practice as > necessary to protect Americans against attack. * > > > > The admission comes after the Guardian newspaper published a secret court > order related to the records of millions of Verizon Communications > customers on its website on Wednesday. > > > > A senior administration official said the court order pertains only to > data such as a telephone number or the length of a call, and not the > subscribers' identities or the content of the telephone calls. > > > > Such information is "a critical tool in protecting the nation from > terrorist threats to the United States," the official said, speaking on the > condition of not being named. > > > > "It allows counter terrorism personnel to discover whether known or > suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be > engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the > United States," the official added. > > > > The revelation raises fresh concerns about President Barack Obama's > handling of privacy and free speech issues. His administration is already > under fire for searching Associated Press journalists' calling records and > the emails of a Fox television reporter as part of its inquiries into > leaked government information. > > > > It was not immediately clear whether the practice extends to other > carriers. > > It does. But what is most stunning in all of this is that the benevolent > rulers who are here to "help us" have not made selling of any security > illegal and punishable by death. Yet. > Average: > 4.733335 > Your rating: None Average: 4.7 (15 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 06:26:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:26:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/us/nsa-verizon-calls.html?ref=global-home& _r=0 U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad WASHINGTON - The federal government has been secretly collecting information on foreigners overseas for nearly six years from the nation's largest Internet companies like Google, Facebook and, most recently, Apple, in search of national security threats, the director of national intelligence confirmed Thursday night. The confirmation of the classified program came just hours after government officials acknowledged a separate seven-year effort to sweep up records of telephone calls inside the United States. Together, the unfolding revelations opened a window into the growth of government surveillance that began under the Bush administration after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and has clearly been embraced and even expanded under the Obama administration. Government officials defended the two surveillance initiatives as authorized under law, known to Congress and necessary to guard the country against terrorist threats. But an array of civil liberties advocates and libertarian conservatives said the disclosures provided the most detailed confirmation yet of what has been long suspected about what the critics call an alarming and ever-widening surveillance state. The Internet surveillance program collects data from online providers including e-mail, chat services, videos, photos, stored data, file transfers, video conferencing and log-ins, according to classified documents obtained and posted by The Washington Post and then The Guardian on Thursday afternoon. In confirming its existence, officials said that the program, called Prism, is authorized under a foreign intelligence law that was recently renewed by Congress, and maintained that it minimizes the collection and retention of information "incidentally acquired" about Americans and permanent residents. Several of the Internet companies said they did not allow the government open-ended access to their servers but complied with specific lawful requests for information. "It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States," James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said in a statement, describing the law underlying the program. "Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats." The Prism program grew out of the National Security Agency's desire several years ago to begin addressing the agency's need to keep up with the explosive growth of social media, according to people familiar with the matter. The dual revelations, in rapid succession, also suggested that someone with access to high-level intelligence secrets had decided to unveil them in the midst of furor over leak investigations. Both were reported by The Guardian, while The Post, relying upon the same presentation, almost simultaneously reported the Internet company tapping. The Post said a disenchanted intelligence official provided it with the documents to expose government overreach. Before the disclosure of the Internet company surveillance program on Thursday, the White House and Congressional leaders defended the phone program, saying it was legal and necessary to protect national security. Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, told reporters aboard Air Force One that the kind of surveillance at issue "has been a critical tool in protecting the nation from terror threats as it allows counterterrorism personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States." He added: "The president welcomes a discussion of the trade-offs between security and civil liberties." The Guardian and The Post posted several slides from the 41-page presentation about the Internet program, listing the companies involved - which included Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL, Skype and YouTube - and the dates they joined the program, as well as listing the types of information collected under the program. The reports came as President Obama was traveling to meet President Xi Jinping of China at an estate in Southern California, a meeting intended to address among other things complaints about Chinese cyberattacks and spying. Now that conversation will take place amid discussion of America's own vast surveillance operations. Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. But while the administration and lawmakers who supported the telephone records program emphasized that all three branches of government had signed off on it, Anthony Romero of the American Civil Liberties Union denounced the surveillance as an infringement of fundamental individual liberties, no matter how many parts of the government approved of it. "A pox on all the three houses of government," Mr. Romero said. "On Congress, for legislating such powers, on the FISA court for being such a paper tiger and rubber stamp, and on the Obama administration for not being true to its values." Others raised concerns about whether the telephone program was effective. Word of the program emerged when The Guardian posted an April order from the secret foreign intelligence court directing a subsidiary of Verizon Communications to give the N.S.A. "on an ongoing daily basis" until July logs of communications "between the United States and abroad" or "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls." On Thursday, Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, said the court order appeared to be a routine reauthorization as part of a broader program that lawmakers have long known about and supported. "As far as I know, this is an exact three-month renewal of what has been the case for the past seven years," Ms. Feinstein said, adding that it was carried out by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court "under the business records section of the Patriot Act." "Therefore, it is lawful," she said. "It has been briefed to Congress." While refusing to confirm or to directly comment on the reported court order, Verizon, in an internal e-mail to employees, defended its release of calling information to the N.S.A. Randy Milch, an executive vice president and general counsel, wrote that "the law authorizes the federal courts to order a company to provide information in certain circumstances, and if Verizon were to receive such an order, we would be required to comply." Sprint and AT&T have also received demands for data from national security officials, according to people familiar with the requests. Those companies as well as T-Mobile and CenturyLink declined to say Thursday whether they were or had been under a similar court order. Lawmakers and administration officials who support the phone program defended it in part by noting that it was only for "metadata" - like logs of calls sent and received - and did not involve listening in on people's conversations. The Internet company program appeared to involve eavesdropping on the contents of communications of foreigners. The senior administration official said its legal basis was the so-called FISA Amendments Act, a 2008 law that allows the government to obtain an order from a national security court to conduct blanket surveillance of foreigners abroad without individualized warrants even if the interception takes place on American soil. The law, which Congress reauthorized in late 2012, is controversial in part because Americans' e-mails and phone calls can be swept into the database without an individualized court order when they communicate with people overseas. While the newspapers portrayed the classified documents as indicating that the N.S.A. obtained direct access to the companies' servers, several of the companies - including Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Apple - denied that the government could do so. Instead, the companies have negotiated with the government technical means to provide specific data in response to court orders, according to people briefed on the arrangements. "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data," the company said in a statement. "We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'backdoor' into our systems, but Google does not have a 'backdoor' for the government to access private user data." Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. While murky questions remained about the Internet company program, the confirmation of the calling log program solved a mystery that has puzzled national security legal policy observers in Washington for years: why a handful of Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee were raising cryptic alarms about Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the law Congress enacted after the 9/11 attacks. Section 215 made it easier for the government to obtain a secret order for business records, so long as they were deemed relevant to a national security investigation. Section 215 is among the sections of the Patriot Act that have periodically come up for renewal. Since around 2009, a handful of Democratic senators briefed on the program - including Ron Wyden of Oregon - have sought to tighten that standard to require a specific nexus to terrorism before someone's records could be obtained, while warning that the statute was being interpreted in an alarming way that they could not detail because it was classified. On Thursday, Mr. Wyden confirmed that the program is what he and others have been expressing concern about. He said he hoped the disclosure would "force a real debate" about whether such "sweeping, dragnet surveillance" should be permitted - or is even effective. But just as efforts by Mr. Wyden and fellow skeptics, including Senators Richard J. Durbin of Illinois and Mark Udall of Colorado, to tighten standards on whose communications logs could be obtained under the Patriot Act have repeatedly failed, their criticism was engulfed in a clamor of broad, bipartisan support for the program. "If we don't do it," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, "we're crazy." And Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, claimed in a news conference that the program helped stop a significant domestic terrorist attack in the United States in the last few years. He gave no details. It has long been known that one aspect of the Bush administration's program of surveillance without court oversight involved vacuuming up communications metadata and mining the database to identify associates - called a "community of interest" - of a suspected terrorist. In December 2005, The New York Times revealed the existence of elements of that program, setting off a debate about civil liberties and the rule of law. But in early 2007, Alberto R. Gonzales, then the attorney general, announced that after months of extensive negotiation, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court had approved "innovative" and "complex" orders bringing the surveillance programs under its authority. Reporting was contributed by Eric Schmitt, Jonathan Weisman and James Risen from Washington; Brian X. Chen from New York; Vindu Goel, Claire Cain Miller, Nicole Perlroth, Somini Sengupta and Michael S. Schmidt from San Francisco; and Nick Wingfield from Seattle. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130607042216:5A2ACA16-CF4B-11E2-B107-84DD527AC225 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:08:57 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 07:08:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> References: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: More on the same issue from the BBC this morning http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541 (Please advise whether the URL is sufficient, or if I should post the text as well) Deirdre On 7 June 2013 06:26, michael gurstein wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com > > .............. -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:13:32 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 04:13:32 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: References: <050501ce6369$722f6e30$568e4a90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Interesting. On Jun 7, 2013 11:10 AM, "Deirdre Williams" wrote: > More on the same issue from the BBC this morning > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22809541 > (Please advise whether the URL is sufficient, or if I should post the text > as well) > Deirdre > > > On 7 June 2013 06:26, michael gurstein wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] >> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:22 AM >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] U.S. Says It Gathers Online Data Abroad - NYTimes.com >> >> .............. > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 07:47:37 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 06:47:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation Message-ID: For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... thanks! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** ** Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your browser Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation ------------------------------ *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* ------------------------------ This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance and Diplomacy.’ *Towela Nyirenda-Jere Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating Agency* How the programme works - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and some of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of diplomacy including negotiation, protocol, and language. - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose the remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy topics. Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful completion, you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary Diplomacy. *Faculty members* include practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per week. Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - see the programme websitefor more details. The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG courses hold key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder Advisory Group. *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 October 2013*. For further details and application instructions, please visit http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. Available courses include: - *Cybersecurity* - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* - *Development Diplomacy* - *Language and Diplomacy* - *Economic Diplomacy* This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full programme. - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application early, making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your Master’s programme fees. The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online courses beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit www.diplomacy.edu/courses or contact admissions at diplomacy.edu Like us on FaceBook Follow us on Twitter Our website Our network *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From betunat at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 08:24:28 2013 From: betunat at gmail.com (Bethel Terefe) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:24:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: dear Ginger, Thank you for the information. I went to the web page and checked it out in there it is only stated about partial scholarship. Do you have any information on the availability of full scholarship. Regards, Bethel On 6/7/13, Ginger Paque wrote: > For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... thanks! > Ginger > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: > Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, > Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic > Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > ** > ** > > > > ** > Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your > browser > Master > in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation > ------------------------------ > *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, > offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* > ------------------------------ > This unique programme gives current and future Internet policymakers > a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to engage > effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG route > in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the > focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is > directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found immense > value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet Governance > and Diplomacy.’ > > *Towela Nyirenda-Jere > Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating > Agency* > How the programme works > > - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you > will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and > some > of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of > diplomacy > including negotiation, protocol, and language. > - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten weeks. > You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose > the > remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy > topics. > Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course > lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and > assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed these > courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in > Contemporary > Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. > - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the > programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related topic, > under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful > completion, > you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded by > the > University of Malta. > - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be > listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of the > programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary > Diplomacy. > > *Faculty > members* > include > practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with > both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. > > *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, > drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as > lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide > when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per > week. > Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? > You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) specialisation - > see the > programme > websitefor > more details. > The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide and > has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at the > University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG > courses > hold > key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet > Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder > Advisory Group. > > *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals > interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other > Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists > involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, > journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations > wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. > > *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 > October 2013*. > For further details and application instructions, please visit > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD > or > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for > academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. > Available courses include: > > - *Cybersecurity* > - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* > - *Development Diplomacy* > - *Language and Diplomacy* > - *Economic Diplomacy* > > This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. > > - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full > programme. > - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving > just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. > - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application early, > making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. > - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your > Master’s programme fees. > > The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online courses > beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit > www.diplomacy.edu/courses > or > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > > Like > us on > FaceBook > > Follow > us on > Twitter > > Our > website > > Our > network > *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* > ------------------------------ > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:22:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:22:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk Message-ID: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. M From: DAVID FARBER [mailto:dfarber at me.com] Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 7:10 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1 NSA taps in to internet giants' systems to mine user data, secret files reveal Prism A slide depicting the top-secret PRISM program The National Security Agency has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and other US internet giants, according to a top secret document obtained by the Guardian. The NSA access is part of a previously undisclosed program called PRISM, which allows officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats, the document says. The Guardian has verified the authenticity of the document, a 41-slide PowerPoint presentation – classified as top secret with no distribution to foreign allies – which was apparently used to train intelligence operatives on the capabilities of the program. The document claims "collection directly from the servers" of major US service providers. Although the presentation claims the program is run with the assistance of the companies, all those who responded to a Guardian request for comment on Thursday denied knowledge of any such program. In a statement, Google said: "Google cares deeply about the security of our users' data. We disclose user data to government in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government 'back door' into our systems, but Google does not have a back door for the government to access private user data." Several senior tech executives insisted that they had no knowledge of PRISM or of any similar scheme. They said they would never have been involved in such a programme. "If they are doing this, they are doing it without our knowledge," one said. An Apple spokesman said it had "never heard" of PRISM. The NSA access was enabled by changes to US surveillance law introduced under President Bush and renewed under Obama in December 2012. Prism The program facilitates extensive, in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information. The law allows for the targeting of any customers of participating firms who live outside the US, or those Americans whose communications include people outside the US. It also opens the possibility of communications made entirely within the US being collected without warrants. Disclosure of the PRISM program follows a leak to the Guardian on Wednesday of a top-secret court order compelling telecoms provider Verizon to turn over the telephone records of millions of US customers. The participation of the internet companies in PRISM will add to the debate, ignited by the Verizon revelation, about the scale of surveillance by the intelligence services. Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata. Some of the world's largest internet brands are claimed to be part of the information-sharing program since its introduction in 2007. Microsoft – which is currently running an advertising campaign with the slogan "Your privacy is our priority" – was the first, with collection beginning in December 2007. It was followed by Yahoo in 2008; Google, Facebook and PalTalk in 2009; YouTube in 2010; Skype and AOL in 2011; and finally Apple, which joined the program in 2012. The program is continuing to expand, with other providers due to come online. Collectively, the companies cover the vast majority of online email, search, video and communications networks. Prism The extent and nature of the data collected from each company varies. Companies are legally obliged to comply with requests for users' communications under US law, but the PRISM program allows the intelligence services direct access to the companies' servers. The NSA document notes the operations have "assistance of communications providers in the US". The revelation also supports concerns raised by several US senators during the renewal of the Fisa Amendments Act in December 2012, who warned about the scale of surveillance the law might enable, and shortcomings in the safeguards it introduces. When the FAA was first enacted, defenders of the statute argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. A chart prepared by the NSA, contained within the top-secret document obtained by the Guardian, underscores the breadth of the data it is able to obtain: email, video and voice chat, videos, photos, voice-over-IP (Skype, for example) chats, file transfers, social networking details, and more. PRISM slide crop The document is recent, dating to April 2013. Such a leak is extremely rare in the history of the NSA, which prides itself on maintaining a high level of secrecy. The PRISM program allows the NSA, the world's largest surveillance organisation, to obtain targeted communications without having to request them from the service providers and without having to obtain individual court orders. With this program, the NSA is able to reach directly into the servers of the participating companies and obtain both stored communications as well as perform real-time collection on targeted users. The presentation claims PRISM was introduced to overcome what the NSA regarded as shortcomings of Fisa warrants in tracking suspected foreign terrorists. It noted that the US has a "home-field advantage" due to housing much of the internet's architecture. But the presentation claimed "Fisa constraints restricted our home-field advantage" because Fisa required individual warrants and confirmations that both the sender and receiver of a communication were outside the US. "Fisa was broken because it provided privacy protections to people who were not entitled to them," the presentation claimed. "It took a Fisa court order to collect on foreigners overseas who were communicating with other foreigners overseas simply because the government was collecting off a wire in the United States . There were too many email accounts to be practical to seek Fisas for all." The new measures introduced in the FAA redefines "electronic surveillance" to exclude anyone "reasonably believed" to be outside the USA – a technical change which reduces the bar to initiating surveillance. The act also gives the director of national intelligence and the attorney general power to permit obtaining intelligence information, and indemnifies internet companies against any actions arising as a result of co-operating with authorities' requests. In short, where previously the NSA needed individual authorisations, and confirmation that all parties were outside the USA, they now need only reasonable suspicion that one of the parties was outside the country at the time of the records were collected by the NSA. The document also shows the FBI acts as an intermediary between other agencies and the tech companies, and stresses its reliance on the participation of US internet firms, claiming "access is 100% dependent on ISP provisioning". In the document, the NSA hails the PRISM program as "one of the most valuable, unique and productive accesses for NSA". It boasts of what it calls "strong growth" in its use of the PRISM program to obtain communications. The document highlights the number of obtained communications increased in 2012 by 248% for Skype – leading the notes to remark there was "exponential growth in Skype reporting; looks like the word is getting out about our capability against Skype". There was also a 131% increase in requests for Facebook data, and 63% for Google. The NSA document indicates that it is planning to add Dropbox as a PRISM provider. The agency also seeks, in its words, to "expand collection services from existing providers". The revelations echo fears raised on the Senate floor last year during the expedited debate on the renewal of the FAA powers which underpin the PRISM program, which occurred just days before the act expired. Senator Christopher Coons of Delaware specifically warned that the secrecy surrounding the various surveillance programs meant there was no way to know if safeguards within the act were working. "The problem is: we here in the Senate and the citizens we represent don't know how well any of these safeguards actually work," he said. "The law doesn't forbid purely domestic information from being collected. We know that at least one Fisa court has ruled that the surveillance program violated the law. Why? Those who know can't say and average Americans can't know." Other senators also raised concerns. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon attempted, without success, to find out any information on how many phone calls or emails had been intercepted under the program. When the law was enacted, defenders of the FAA argued that a significant check on abuse would be the NSA's inability to obtain electronic communications without the consent of the telecom and internet companies that control the data. But the PRISM program renders that consent unnecessary, as it allows the agency to directly and unilaterally seize the communications off the companies' servers. When the NSA reviews a communication it believes merits further investigation, it issues what it calls a "report". According to the NSA, "over 2,000 PRISM-based reports" are now issued every month. There were 24,005 in 2012, a 27% increase on the previous year. In total, more than 77,000 intelligence reports have cited the PRISM program. Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, that it was astonishing the NSA would even ask technology companies to grant direct access to user data. "It's shocking enough just that the NSA is asking companies to do this," he said. "The NSA is part of the military. The military has been granted unprecedented access to civilian communications. "This is unprecedented militarisation of domestic communications infrastructure. That's profoundly troubling to anyone who is concerned about that separation." Additional reporting by James Ball and Dominic Rushe Archives https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg| Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25641 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 9908 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43872 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35867 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 813 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image008.jpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 858 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:31:03 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:31:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the > Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their > supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? > Doesn't this news (yet to be clarified BTW, see link below) mean that we should push for more hands-offyness, rather than less? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/internet-companies-deny-prism_n_3399841.html?ref=topbar **** > > ** ** > > I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities > as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the > putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate > oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. > am for the former, not the latter. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 09:42:11 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:42:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] FYI: Master in Diplomacy with IG specialisation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bethel, Diplo is searching for donors who can support full or partial scholarships for participants from LCDs and small island states (Diplo's priorities). We also provide support for candidates' search for scholarship funding (e.g. letters, advice) from regional and global prospective partners that you might find, from business, academia or government. If you are interested, the first step is to pass the entrance process for the University of Malta. Feel free to email me privately (VirginiaP @ diplomacy.edu) if you would like to discuss the process in more detail. Good luck! Ginger Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 7 June 2013 07:24, Bethel Terefe wrote: > dear Ginger, > > Thank you for the information. I went to the web page and checked it > out in there it is only stated about partial scholarship. Do you have > any information on the availability of full scholarship. > > Regards, > Bethel > > On 6/7/13, Ginger Paque wrote: > > For those who might be interested, or know someone who might be... > thanks! > > Ginger > > > > Ginger (Virginia) Paque > > IG Programmes, DiploFoundation > > > > *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet > governance: > > Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, > > Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic > > Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply > at > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* > > ** > > ** > > > > > > > > ** > > Is this email not displaying correctly? View this email in your > > browser< > http://us5.campaign-archive1.com/?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=d5f0e5ab3d&e=330e500107 > > > > Master > > in Contemporary Diplomacy with an Internet Governance Specialisation > > ------------------------------ > > *Accelerate your career with this online diplomacy programme, > > offered by DiploFoundation and the University of Malta.* > > ------------------------------ > > This unique programme gives current and future Internet > policymakers > > a solid foundation in diplomatic skills and techniques, necessary to > engage > > effectively in international global policy processes. ’The IG > route > > in the MA Contemporary Diplomacy Programme has enabled me to situate the > > focus of my work on Internet Governance in Africa in a space that is > > directly relevant to the mandate of the NEPAD Agency. I have found > immense > > value in being able to bring together the two worlds of Internet > Governance > > and Diplomacy.’ > > > > *Towela Nyirenda-Jere > > Programme Manager, e-Africa Programme, NEPAD Planning and Coordinating > > Agency* > > How the programme works > > > > - First, you attend a 10-day residential workshop in Malta. Here you > > will get a clear overview of the programme, meet your classmates and > > some > > of the faculty members, and develop skills in critical areas of > > diplomacy > > including negotiation, protocol, and language. > > - Next, you participate in five online courses, each lasting ten > weeks. > > You will attend three or four courses in IG-related topics and choose > > the > > remaining courses from our wide range of diplomacy > > topics< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=db6efaa15c&e=330e500107 > >. > > Online study involves reading and discussing lecture texts with course > > lecturers and fellow participants, completing learning activities and > > assignments, and joining online meetings. Once you have completed > these > > courses, you are eligible to receive a Postgraduate Diploma in > > Contemporary > > Diplomacy awarded by the University of Malta. > > - If you continue to the Master's degree, the final part of the > > programme is writing your dissertation, focussed on an IG-related > topic, > > under the personal guidance of a faculty member. On successful > > completion, > > you will receive a Master’s degree in Contemporary Diplomacy awarded > by > > the > > University of Malta. > > - The IG courses you attended – as well as other courses – will be > > listed in a detailed transcript which you can order on completion of > the > > programme to supplement your diploma or degree in Contemporary > > Diplomacy. > > > > *Faculty > > members*< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=891889c658&e=330e500107 > > > > include > > practising and retired diplomats, academics, and specialists in IG with > > both theoretical expertise and practical experience in the field. > > > > *Online learning* takes place in small groups and is highly interactive, > > drawing on the experience and knowledge of participants as well as > > lecturers. Course work is flexible: within a weekly schedule, you decide > > when and where to study. The programme requires 5–7 hours of study per > > week. > > Interested in a traditional diplomacy programme? > > You can also register without the Internet governance (IG) > specialisation - > > see the > > programme > > website< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=d08226efbf&e=330e500107 > >for > > more details. > > The Master/PGD in Contemporary Diplomacy is recognised worldwide > and > > has European postgraduate accreditation through the Faculty of Arts at > the > > University of Malta. Graduates of Diplo's IG > > courses< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=2f52adb731&e=330e500107 > > > > hold > > key positions in national and international bodies working in Internet > > Governance, including the Internet Governance Forum Multistakeholder > > Advisory Group. > > > > *Who should apply* Diplomats, government officials, and other individuals > > interested in or responsible for IG, cybersecurity and other > > Internet-related policy issues; business and civil society activists > > involved in multistakeholder IG processes; postgraduate students, > > journalists, staff of international and non-governmental organisations > > wishing to take an active part in Internet policy-making. > > > > *How to apply* The next programme begins on 29 January 2014. *Apply by 1 > > October 2013*. > > For further details and application instructions, please visit > > http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses/MAPGD< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=eeb173e680&e=330e500107 > > > > or > > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > *Get a head start* Enroll in an online course during autumn 2013 for > > academic credit towards the 2014 Master in Contemporary Diplomacy. > > Available courses include: > > > > - *Cybersecurity* > > - *Consular and Diaspora Diplomacy* > > - *Development Diplomacy* > > - *Language and Diplomacy* > > - *Economic Diplomacy* > > > > This is an excellent way to get a head start on your Master’s studies. > > > > - You can try out one of our courses before committing to the full > > programme. > > - You complete one online course before the programme begins, leaving > > just four to complete after registering for the Master’s programme. > > - The University of Malta will screen and accept your application > early, > > making the Master’s programme application process quicker and easier. > > - Tuition fees paid for the online course will be deducted from your > > Master’s programme fees. > > > > The application deadline for University of Malta accredited online > courses > > beginning in October 2013 is *5 August 2013*. For more information, visit > > www.diplomacy.edu/courses< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=ac17a4250c&e=330e500107 > > > > or > > contact admissions at diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=a8b30c7058&e=330e500107 > > > > Like > > us on > > FaceBook< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=cedc909532&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=311319af69&e=330e500107 > > > > Follow > > us on > > Twitter< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=fded0e9332&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=218b62a7e5&e=330e500107 > > > > Our > > website< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=11bddcb68e&e=330e500107 > > > > < > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=9d9cc44146&e=330e500107 > > > > Our > > network< > http://diplomacy.us5.list-manage.com/track/click?u=89e7299f9fe54eed66d45cf3d&id=da9ba6db07&e=330e500107 > > > > *Copyright © 2013 DiploFoundation, All rights reserved.* > > ------------------------------ > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:02:02 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:02:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Could someone please help to clarify things for me? I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions ) - supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? Thank you Deirdre On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > > Hi, > > While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the > point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I > feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the > key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the > W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, > be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from > content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium > content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I > am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, > I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users > rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > > Hi Sala, > > To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > > A cleaned up version of a short statement: > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) < > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> > > The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > for itself. See no need to add more than above. > > Adam > > > > On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > > http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > comments and suggest text. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first >> version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >> >> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. >> I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >> on the revised statement. >> >> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >> the planet. >> >> >> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to >> shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >> and lock in legacy business models. >> >> >> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >> communities. >> >> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >> arguments in this regard. >> >> > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:08:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:08:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> McTim, As I was very careful to point out in my initial blogposts on this re: the WCIT, the issue is not "hands off the Internet" but rather whose hands off (or on) and for what purposes. There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too important and pervasive for there not to be--and anyone surprised by the revelations from the Guardian article isn't living in the real world. The question is whether there are structures of accountability, responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of economic, political or technical authority/power. M From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:31 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 9:22 AM, michael gurstein wrote: So where exactly does this leave the current/recent "Hands off the Internet" campaign as spearheaded by the USG, Google, and various of their supporters and cooperants in Civil Society and elsewhere? Doesn't this news (yet to be clarified BTW, see link below) mean that we should push for more hands-offyness, rather than less? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/06/internet-companies-deny-prism_n_339 9841.html?ref=topbar I'm personally ready to join any campaign which recognizes these realities as below and militates for "everyone's" hands off the Internet and/or the putting in place of effective global measures to ensure appropriate oversight, appeal, transparency, accountability etc.etc. am for the former, not the latter. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:10:23 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:10:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Well put Sent from my iPhone On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: > > additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >>> 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: >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri Jun 7 10:18:03 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:18:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51B1EB9B.7050908@catherine-roy.net> Hi Adam, It certainly does cover my concerns. I would quote to you the relevant passages but that would mean pratically quoting half of the formal objection. For example: "The inclusion of this deliverable, and any deliverable where ultimate control over user agent functionality is technically and legally removed from the user, will (1) exclude an entire class of platforms and user agents from full conformance with the HTML5 standard and the W3C's vision of the Open Web; (2) encourage the reduction of the amount of content accessible to users via the Web; and (3) create serious future impediments to W3C's core mission of promoting interoperability, voluntary standards compliance, and access for all." - 2nd para "[...] We hope we can bring our experience working with standards groups, researchers, legislators, and users to help illuminate best practices for conveniently providing support for commercial content while still preserving user rights." - 3rd para "Engineering usage control on modern devices requires both preventing the user from controlling some of the functionality of her own device, and giving control over that functionality to a third party. Many developers view this as both technically problematic (users should normally have full access to the hardware and software of their own devices), and damaging to user security (with remote usage control, third parties may extract, delete or tamper data on the user's computer without permission; see, e.g. the Sony Rootkit scandal). Usage controls also provide an disturbing set of incentives to withhold the highest level of administrative control over a device from its owner, forcing individuals to cede power over their devices to others and eroding the meaning and scope of ownership." - 9th para Etc., etc. For more examples, please read : https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg Hope this helps, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 07/06/2013 1:54 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to >> the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, >> which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole >> matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list >> mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if >> required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of >> the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that >> shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting >> out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content >> (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, >> while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing >> exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the >> statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, >> "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >>> Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, >>> how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read >>> the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the >>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add >>>> your comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised >>>> the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the >>>> sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed >>>> reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual >>>> property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >>>> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be >>>> thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common >>>> ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read >>>> Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see >>>> his report of what the world is saying in relation to this >>>> conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that >>>> deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted >>>> on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to >>>> capture every comment in the attached document. I find that >>>> Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing >>>> people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the >>>> attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >>>> whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend >>>> time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in >>>> HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >>>> mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon >>>> as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us >>>> and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to >>>> the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We >>>> endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft >>>> proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle >>>> Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious >>>> threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the >>>> proposal would be to shut out open source developers and >>>> competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy >>>> business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers >>>> to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open >>>> environment of sharing resources related to agricultural >>>> practices, education, health and diverse content. In such >>>> regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious >>>> resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and >>>> the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that >>>> empowers communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to >>>> the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement >>>> with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:33:49 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:33:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) Message-ID: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 10:50:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:50:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals Message-ID: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-fro m-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-ceb f-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html some of the slides http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-docum ents/ Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox apparently next up. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Fri Jun 7 10:56:03 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:56:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 11:02:09 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 08:02:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: This is quite worrisome. On Jun 7, 2013 2:51 PM, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 11:16:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:16:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <064201ce6391$f7f1a6a0$e7d4f3e0$@gmail.com> I may have missed it but I didn't see any denial by the head of the NSA program and presumably the party ultimately responsible for the slides. Although I did see the extremely carefully (and interestingly similarly) worded "denial statements" by the company PR reps. http://marketingland.com/google-apple-facebook-deny-nsa-prism-program-47323 M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 10:56 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-fro m-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-ceb f-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html some of the slides http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-docum ents/ Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox apparently next up. ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 7 11:47:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:17:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original > reportage. > Dear Nick, I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. parminder > On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" > wrote: > > Guardian: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Washington Post: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > > some of the slides > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > > Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > apparently next up. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 11:53:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 11:53:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > important and pervasive for there not to be I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable for > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of economic, > political or technical authority/power. > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:02:49 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:02:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Absolutely On Jun 7, 2013 4:00 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > McTim, > > > > > > > > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > > important and pervasive for there not to be > > > I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > > > > > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for > > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, > > political or technical authority/power. > > > > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are > accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:03:44 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 09:03:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ...not! On Jun 7, 2013 4:00 PM, "McTim" wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > McTim, > > > > > > > > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > > important and pervasive for there not to be > > > I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > > > > > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for > > everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, > > political or technical authority/power. > > > > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are > accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Fri Jun 7 12:04:20 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:04:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> Dear Parminder, I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified by what I'm reading). On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. >> > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. > > parminder > > >> On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: >> Guardian: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data >> >> Washington Post: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html >> >> some of the slides >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ >> >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox >> apparently next up. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:06:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:06:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> That's just silly... and you know it as well or better than anyone... We already know by admission what is going on and what has been going on for at least 7 years (according to Mr. Clapper of the NSA)... We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. The challenge for us/CS and for anyone including governments, the technical community, and responsible elements in the private sector is to figure out ways of making those processes transparent and subject to the rule of law (and to create appropriate laws and governance/enforcement mechanisms as and where necessary... To not do so is to allow for the creation of a unipolar surveillance state which is, I would have thought, more or less universally repugnant. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 11:53 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 10:08 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > McTim, > > > > There will inevitably be mutliple hands on the Internet, it is far too > important and pervasive for there not to be I think this is a defeatist attitude that CS should not support. > The question is whether there are structures of accountability, > responsibility, transparency and so on that are accessible and useable > for everyone and not just for those who are in a current position of > economic, political or technical authority/power. > so every national gov't should be able to snoop, as long as they are accountable, responsible, transparent, etc? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:28:42 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:28:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > That's just silly... and you know it as well or better than anyone... If being an idealist is silly, then I will proudly wear that badge > > We already know by admission what is going on and what has been going on for > at least 7 years (according to Mr. Clapper of the NSA)... excellent timeline by EFF here: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline > > We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance and to > the max, that's the nature of that beast.. so we shouldn't oppose it? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:30:20 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 19:30:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] IP-Watch Brief: EU Court Backs Secrecy, Privileged Industry Access In Trade Talks In-Reply-To: <201306071618.r57GIG1Y016689@imu289.infomaniak.ch> References: <201306071618.r57GIG1Y016689@imu289.infomaniak.ch> Message-ID: <51B20A9C.7000301@gmail.com> [How will multi-stakeholderism deal with this? Are all civil estates equal? June 07, 2013. EU Court Backs Secrecy, Privileged Industry Access In Trade Talks Secrecy in trade negotiations and privileged access for business and trade associations does not violate EU law, according to a judgment handed in by the Court of the European Union in Luxembourg today. Link to the article: http://www.ip-watch.org/?p=29741&utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 12:48:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 12:48:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Great... So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we opposing? M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 12:29 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk [MG>] ... > We also know that anyone/country which can/will do its surveillance > and to the max, that's the nature of that beast.. so we shouldn't oppose it? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri Jun 7 13:10:45 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:10:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Hi Deirdre. I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > recent EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft > Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant > broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to > include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a > detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to > this reference in 2 - > > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > specification: > > * additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support > use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, > additions for: > o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions > ) > o supporting playback of protected content" > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > was what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake > wrote: > > Hi Catherine, > > Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > > Best, > > Adam > > > On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, >> to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' >> rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this >> whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media >> mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of >> debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for >> particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real >> problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right >> software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the >> discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend >> to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith >> and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would >> like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a >>> separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my >>> opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit >>> vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >>> HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to >>> the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >>> statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long >>> and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can >>>> add your comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have >>>> revised the first version to the one below. I have >>>> highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note >>>> that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the >>>> protection of intellectual property rights through mediums >>>> like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to >>>> threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting >>>> debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are >>>> able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's >>>> new report but it would be interesting to see his report of >>>> what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am >>>> of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that >>>> deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be >>>> hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I >>>> have tried to capture every comment in the attached >>>> document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >>>> effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each >>>> sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is >>>> inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested >>>> that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we >>>> should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation >>>> would be:- >>>> >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management >>>> in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings >>>> and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All >>>> the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. >>>> As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will >>>> inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the >>>> revised statement. >>>> >>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection_* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects >>>> to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >>>> HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged >>>> by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the >>>> draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for >>>> people across the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious >>>> threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of >>>> the proposal would be to shut out open source developers >>>> and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in >>>> legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source >>>> developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an >>>> open environment of sharing resources related to >>>> agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a >>>> challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is >>>> an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection >>>> to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our >>>> agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Fri Jun 7 13:50:02 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 10:50:02 -0700 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Clapper made two separate statements. The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized -disclosures-of-classified-information The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz ed-under-section-702-of-fisa (If the links get mangled too much, just go to http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA > National Intelligence) > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today- > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." > > > M > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 14:19:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 14:19:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 15:14:38 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 15:14:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <081c01ce63b3$48175eb0$d8461c10$@gmail.com> Tks, I can see why that might be useful in the US for US folks but how is it going to impact on the US Internet surveillance outside of the US (or Internet surveillance by others on their own citizens or citizens of other countries... or surveillance by other countries of their own citizens using US information... and so on... M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 7 15:20:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:50:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> I agree with nick here --srs (htc one x) On 7 June 2013 9:34:20 PM Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite > recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation > that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via > reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified > by what I'm reading). > > On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. > >> > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may > need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making > such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests > of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every > reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. Thanks. > > parminder > > >> On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Guardian: > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > >> Washington Post: > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html > >> some of the slides > >> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ > >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, > >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox > >> apparently next up. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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: > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 7 15:50:13 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:20:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> On Friday 07 June 2013 11:49 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> Great... >> >> So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we >> opposing? > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. McTim, Are you really suggesting that we write to the US gov to repeal the Patriot Act? I thought there was a view expressed on this list that US government cannot be called upon to explain itself to mere people like us.... parminder > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 7 15:57:40 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 01:27:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether or not it will be is another story The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this --srs (htc one x) On 8 June 2013 1:20:13 AM parminder wrote: > > On Friday 07 June 2013 11:49 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Great... > >> > >> So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > >> opposing? > > > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. > > McTim, Are you really suggesting that we write to the US gov to repeal the > Patriot Act? I thought there was a view expressed on this list that US > government cannot be called upon to explain itself to mere people like us.... > > parminder > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:34:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:34:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator > mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether > or not it will be is another story > > The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, etc) who can carry the ball for CS. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jcurran at istaff.org Fri Jun 7 16:49:32 2013 From: jcurran at istaff.org (John Curran) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 16:49:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, > per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to > intentionally target any US citizen, any other US person, or anyone located > within the United States." Imagine a very, very large collection of data from a variety of sources, including things that have multiple parties involved (e.g. phone calls). There is no way to allow someone to access "all records with Mr. High Risk in them" without also getting records returned that contain references to those who may be US citizens, or located in the US. If Mr. High Risk and myself chatted on the phone, then the record shows up, despite my being a US citizen. You presumably design the system such that it is very hard to query directly (i.e. "target") US citizens, but there will be lots of data returned which incidentally is all about US citizens, unless all references are redacted at the source (which would render the system useless for much of its intended terrorism risk mitigation purposes.) Even you believe that government can operate with very high integrity in the presence of such capabilities, the "incidental" spying ability of such a system when working perfectly is still rather daunting, and presume some acceptance of some very serious tradeoffs between terrorism threat detection and personal freedoms. I fully understand the value in proactive measures protecting innocent parties from harm, but am having some difficulty with imagining a system of "checks and balances" that actually would function successfully, in light of the extreme potential for abuse. /John Disclaimers: My views alone (well, I guess they're also shared with some unknown parties whether I like it or not... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:40:30 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:40:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <0D83D09D-DEBF-4B5B-9344-F6E2F8950167@me.com> References: <0D83D09D-DEBF-4B5B-9344-F6E2F8950167@me.com> Message-ID: <08e401ce63c7$a87625c0$f9627140$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 5:23 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/obama-china-targets-cyber-overse as Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks Obama's move to establish a cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Barack Obama has ordered his senior national security and intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks, a top secret presidential directive obtained by the Guardian reveals. The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging". It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power". The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency. The aim of the document was "to put in place tools and a framework to enable government to make decisions" on cyber actions, a senior administration official told the Guardian. The administration published some declassified talking points from the directive in January 2013, but those did not mention the stepping up of America's offensive capability and the drawing up of a target list. Obama's move to establish a potentially aggressive cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. The directive's publication comes as the president plans to confront his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a summit in California on Friday over alleged Chinese attacks on western targets. Even before the publication of the directive, Beijing had hit back against US criticism, with a senior official claiming to have "mountains of data" on American cyber-attacks he claimed were every bit as serious as those China was accused of having carried out against the US. Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and related programs or activities . conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside United States government networks." Asked about the stepping up of US offensive capabilities outlined in the directive, a senior administration official said: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces." The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are." The document includes caveats and precautions stating that all US cyber operations should conform to US and international law, and that any operations "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval". The document says that agencies should consider the consequences of any cyber-action. They include the impact on intelligence-gathering; the risk of retaliation; the impact on the stability and security of the internet itself; the balance of political risks versus gains; and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behaviour. Among the possible "significant consequences" are loss of life; responsive actions against the US; damage to property; serious adverse foreign policy or economic impacts. The US is understood to have already participated in at least one major cyber attack, the use of the Stuxnet computer worm targeted on Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges, the legality of which has been the subject of controversy. US reports citing high-level sources within the intelligence services said the US and Israel were responsible for the worm. In the presidential directive, the criteria for offensive cyber operations in the directive is not limited to retaliatory action but vaguely framed as advancing "US national objectives around the world". The revelation that the US is preparing a specific target list for offensive cyber-action is likely to reignite previously raised concerns of security researchers and academics, several of whom have warned that large-scale cyber operations could easily escalate into full-scale military conflict. Sean Lawson, assistant professor in the department of communication at the University of Utah, argues: "When militarist cyber rhetoric results in use of offensive cyber attack it is likely that those attacks will escalate into physical, kinetic uses of force." An intelligence source with extensive knowledge of the National Security Agency's systems told the Guardian the US complaints again China were hypocritical, because America had participated in offensive cyber operations and widespread hacking - breaking into foreign computer systems to mine information. Provided anonymity to speak critically about classified practices, the source said: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world." The US likes to haul China before the international court of public opinion for "doing what we do every day", the source added. One of the unclassified points released by the administration in January stated: "It is our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as preferred courses of action." The full classified directive repeatedly emphasizes that all cyber-operations must be conducted in accordance with US law and only as a complement to diplomatic and military options. But it also makes clear how both offensive and defensive cyber operations are central to US strategy. Under the heading "Policy Reviews and Preparation", a section marked "TS/NF" - top secret/no foreign - states: "The secretary of defense, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the director of the CIA . shall prepare for approval by the president through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities." The deadline for the plan is six months after the approval of the directive. The directive provides that any cyber-operations "intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States" require the approval of the president, except in the case of an "emergency cyber action". When such an emergency arises, several departments, including the department of defense, are authorized to conduct such domestic operations without presidential approval. Obama further authorized the use of offensive cyber attacks in foreign nations without their government's consent whenever "US national interests and equities" require such nonconsensual attacks. It expressly reserves the right to use cyber tactics as part of what it calls "anticipatory action taken against imminent threats". The directive makes multiple references to the use of offensive cyber attacks by the US military. It states several times that cyber operations are to be used only in conjunction with other national tools and within the confines of law. When the directive was first reported, lawyers with the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it to be made public. The NSA, in a statement, refused to disclose the directive on the ground that it was classified. In January, the Pentagon announced a major expansion of its Cyber Command Unit, under the command of General Keith Alexander, who is also the director of the NSA. That unit is responsible for executing both offensive and defensive cyber operations. Earlier this year, the Pentagon publicly accused China for the first time of being behind attacks on the US. The Washington Post reported last month that Chinese hackers had gained access to the Pentagon's most advanced military programs. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber threats in general as the top national security threat. Obama officials have repeatedly cited the threat of cyber-attacks to advocate new legislation that would vest the US government with greater powers to monitor and control the internet as a means of guarding against such threats. One such bill currently pending in Congress, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), has prompted serious concerns from privacy groups, who say that it would further erode online privacy while doing little to enhance cyber security. In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, national security council spokeswoman, said: "We have not seen the document the Guardian has obtained, as they did not share it with us. However, as we have already publicly acknowledged, last year the president signed a classified presidential directive relating to cyber operations, updating a similar directive dating back to 2004. This step is part of the administration's focus on cybersecurity as a top priority. The cyber threat has evolved, and we have new experiences to take into account. "This directive establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the full array of national security tools we have at our disposal. It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace. "This directive will establish principles and processes that can enable more effective planning, development, and use of our capabilities. It enables us to be flexible, while also exercising restraint in dealing with the threats we face. It continues to be our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as the preferred courses of action. The procedures outlined in this directive are consistent with the US Constitution, including the president's role as commander in chief, and other applicable law and policies." ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130607172313:740D7484-CFB8-11E2-A664-EFF6DD6631B7 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:13:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:13:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <1AEA8F23-A8C1-4FBF-AAB2-1B8FBAC649BC@istaff.org> Message-ID: <08a501ce63c3$f10210a0$d30631e0$@gmail.com> But what about those of us who are not US citizens...? Do we have any rights at all given the current status quo "hands off the Internet" governance regime of the Internet or, since we aren't among the anointed, are we to be completely fair game wherever or whenever the USG chooses to put its hands into the internet for whatever purpose it sets it's mind to... M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of John Curran Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:50 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) On Jun 7, 2013, at 10:33 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a > statement, per USA Today--the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It > cannot be used to intentionally target any US citizen, any other US > person, or anyone located within the United States." Imagine a very, very large collection of data from a variety of sources, including things that have multiple parties involved (e.g. phone calls). There is no way to allow someone to access "all records with Mr. High Risk in them" without also getting records returned that contain references to those who may be US citizens, or located in the US. If Mr. High Risk and myself chatted on the phone, then the record shows up, despite my being a US citizen. You presumably design the system such that it is very hard to query directly (i.e. "target") US citizens, but there will be lots of data returned which incidentally is all about US citizens, unless all references are redacted at the source (which would render the system useless for much of its intended terrorism risk mitigation purposes.) Even you believe that government can operate with very high integrity in the presence of such capabilities, the "incidental" spying ability of such a system when working perfectly is still rather daunting, and presume some acceptance of some very serious tradeoffs between terrorism threat detection and personal freedoms. I fully understand the value in proactive measures protecting innocent parties from harm, but am having some difficulty with imagining a system of "checks and balances" that actually would function successfully, in light of the extreme potential for abuse. /John Disclaimers: My views alone (well, I guess they're also shared with some unknown parties whether I like it or not... ;-) -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 16:54:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 23:54:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? But why stop at US Civil Society? On 2013/06/07 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator >> mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether >> or not it will be is another story >> >> The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this > Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, > etc) who can carry the ball for CS. > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:48:46 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:48:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secret ppt reveals In-Reply-To: <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <062801ce638e$6553f530$2ffbdf90$@gmail.com> <51B2009E.8060704@itforchange.net> <3F07F11D-3405-45AC-99D9-021B5CFCC0A6@ccianet.org> <13f2014f215.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: If the information is false, the companies will certainly take legal action (not just PR) to clear their names and will seek compensation for damages. Specially because they are US based, which would make it easier. Only a totally transparent judicial review could possibly settle this case. At this point, even if the US gov apologized or said the story is not true (which they did not), the doubts would still remain. Would they be truly apologizing? Would they be trying to hush up the story not to lose the whole alleged scheme? I don't see how companies could possibly make amends if they are truly clean on all that. Anyway, it is a case of major concern, I hope we as an international coalition follow it as closely and mobilize ourselves as strongly as if it was a case related to China or Iran. In fact, if the case proves to be solid, the consequences would go much beyond national surveillance. It seems Anonymous has published some related documents today: http://gizmodo.com/anonymous-just-leaked-a-trove-of-nsa-documents-511854773 Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > I agree with nick here > > --srs (htc one x) > > On 7 June 2013 9:34:20 PM Nick Ashton-Hart ** wrote: > > Dear Parminder, > > I have previously disclosed that fact ad-nauseum, on this list, and quite > recently as you are well aware. In this case, I'm making an observation > that's not connected to my day-job; I'm watching this story unfold via > reportage just like everyone else is (and, personally, am pretty horrified > by what I'm reading). > > On 7 Jun 2013, at 17:47, parminder wrote: > > > On Friday 07 June 2013 08:26 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > It is worth noting that the companies have all denied involvement > categorically, as has been reported subsequently to the original reportage. > > > Dear Nick, > > I agree that the fact that these companies have denied involvement may > need to be highlighted. However, I'd very much appreciate that while making > such a posting as above you declare your job as representing the interests > of at least some of these companies. Unlike what you may assume, not every > reader would know that. This is a normal tenet of public discussions. > Thanks. > > parminder > > > On 7 Jun 2013 16:52, "michael gurstein" wrote: > >> Guardian: >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data >> >> Washington Post: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html >> >> some of the slides >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ >> >> Participating companies in chronological order: Microsoft, Yahoo, >> Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, Apple. Dropbox >> apparently next up. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 18:56:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:56:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Great... > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are we > opposing? repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 19:41:07 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 19:41:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Deirdre. > > I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so > please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which > is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > basically DRM). > > EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically > argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through > its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of > Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > > It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is > effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent > EFF statement. > The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope > for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > determination of end-user usage of content." > https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection > is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > reference in 2 - > > "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > specification: > > - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions > ) > - supporting playback of protected content" > http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > > So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the > Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was > what we were asked about in the first place? > Thank you > Deirdre > > > > On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> (EFF) >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >> >> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> comments and suggest text. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first >>> version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>> >>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>> >>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>> >>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>> >>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. >>> I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course >>> mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>> on the revised statement. >>> >>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>> the planet. >>> >>> >>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to >>> shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >>> and lock in legacy business models. >>> >>> >>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>> communities. >>> >>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>> arguments in this regard. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: >> 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: >> 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 > > > > -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 19:45:18 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 20:45:18 -0300 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: Regardless of the involvement of companies, from the statement below it seems that is fair to conclude that: - The US gov thinks that it is "reassuring" to affirm that they just *intentionally* (well, if some US folks are caught on the net...) spy on non-US citizens. As a non-US citizen, that is outrageous. - US gov candidly recognizes that surveillance over these platforms is a cornerstone of their intelligence (in other words, that they will not stop it) - The mantra of "protecting the nation" from real or imaginary threats has become the justification for any policy option with extraterritorial effects. No shame, no regrets - They send a clear warning (a threat?) to those that want to dig deeper into this story: "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans". Are they really on the top of our list of "friendly governments"? Really? Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > Clapper made two separate statements. > > The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: > > http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized > -disclosures-of-classified-information > > The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: > > http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz > ed-under-section-702-of-fisa > > (If the links get mangled too much, just go to > http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James > Clapper (Director of USA > > National Intelligence) > > > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a > statement, per USA Today- > > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to > intentionally target any US > > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United > States." > > > > > > M > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Fri Jun 7 20:14:48 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 17:14:48 -0700 Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) In-Reply-To: References: <061701ce638c$0c116180$24342480$@gmail.com> <01b101ce63a7$7664d150$632e73f0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <04e901ce63dd$365ab6c0$a3102440$@jstyre.com> I’m not defending, just clarifying that Clapper made two separate statements. Heck, my colleagues at EFF and I have been litigating with AT&T and/or NSA since 2006. Interestingly, in the two pending actions, the government just requested the respective courts to hold them in abeyance, pending review of what Clapper will declassify and how that affects our suits. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Marilia Maciel Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 4:45 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; James S. Tyre Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) Regardless of the involvement of companies, from the statement below it seems that is fair to conclude that: - The US gov thinks that it is "reassuring" to affirm that they just *intentionally* (well, if some US folks are caught on the net...) spy on non-US citizens. As a non-US citizen, that is outrageous. - US gov candidly recognizes that surveillance over these platforms is a cornerstone of their intelligence (in other words, that they will not stop it) - The mantra of "protecting the nation" from real or imaginary threats has become the justification for any policy option with extraterritorial effects. No shame, no regrets - They send a clear warning (a threat?) to those that want to dig deeper into this story: "The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans". Are they really on the top of our list of "friendly governments"? Really? Marília On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 2:50 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: Clapper made two separate statements. The first relates to Wednesday's disclosure of the FISC Order to Verizon: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/868-dni-statement-on-recent-unauthorized -disclosures-of-classified-information The second relates to yesterday's PRISM disclosures: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/191-press-releases-2013/869-dni-statement-on-activities-authoriz ed-under-section-702-of-fisa (If the links get mangled too much, just go to http://www.dni.gov/index.php and click newsroom.) -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of michael gurstein > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 7:34 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Now that's reassuring: Statement from James Clapper (Director of USA > National Intelligence) > > James Clapper (Director of USA National Intelligence) said in a statement, per USA Today- > -the program (PRISM) has clear "limits": "It cannot be used to intentionally target any US > citizen, any other US person, or anyone located within the United States." > > > M > > > ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:00:34 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:00:34 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> Dear Deirdre, Thank you for raising the excellent questions earlier. As you can imagine, life would be simpler to say, we support the EFF Objection Submissions. On the other hand there are some key issues within the EFF that the IGC may not (some would argue...."do not") have a consensus on. The dividing line at the end of the day rests on two critical issues: 1) access 2)intellectual property Both deserve protection and the question that surfaces is whether Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be extended to HTML 5 Increasingly, there are moves to infiltrate the Internet to censor whether for national security, intellectual property rights management etc. Aticle 19 of the ICCPR makes provision for these two scenarios but it is important civil society is not silent. Catherine has made points where she suggests that there are aspects not covered by merely saying, "I support the Statement". The consensus to support making a response to the EFF's objections also requires us to deliberate on the nature of our support aside. We can very easily send the simple support statement if there is consensus but as yet there are a few last things to have consensus on. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 8, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >>> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>>> >>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>>> >>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>>> >>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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: >>>>> 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: >>>> 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 > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:02:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:02:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <3C5AF278-42E1-4B67-B405-BBE0C10BC0F4@gmail.com> Message-ID: I forgot to add, it might be useful to hold a poll at this stage. Sent from my iPad On Jun 8, 2013, at 1:00 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Deirdre, > > Thank you for raising the excellent questions earlier. As you can imagine, life would be simpler to say, we support the EFF Objection Submissions. > > On the other hand there are some key issues within the EFF that the IGC may not (some would argue...."do not") have a consensus on. The dividing line at the end of the day rests on two critical issues: > > 1) access > 2)intellectual property > > Both deserve protection and the question that surfaces is whether Digital Rights Management (DRM) should be extended to HTML 5 > > Increasingly, there are moves to infiltrate the Internet to censor whether for national security, intellectual property rights management etc. Aticle 19 of the ICCPR makes provision for these two scenarios but it is important civil society is not silent. > > Catherine has made points where she suggests that there are aspects not covered by merely saying, "I support the Statement". > > The consensus to support making a response to the EFF's objections also requires us to deliberate on the nature of our support aside. We can very easily send the simple support statement if there is consensus but as yet there are a few last things to have consensus on. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 11:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>>> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Catherine >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>> 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: >>>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 7 21:37:52 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 07:07:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f216e6f47.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> In their individual countries and through whatever means of working towards such as a repeal certainly The question before the house was the caucus writing to the usg --srs (htc one x) On 8 June 2013 2:24:35 AM Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? > > But why stop at US Civil Society? > > On 2013/06/07 11:34 PM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > >> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and senator > >> mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. Of course whether > >> or not it will be is another story > >> > >> The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this > > Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, > > etc) who can carry the ball for CS. > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 21:42:39 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 21:42:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how > it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 22:20:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2013 22:20:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <51B2488B.4040900@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz, It's difficult to know who you are replying to when you top post, but I think you are asking me, so here goes: On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Which is why you want internationalisation (of your particular definition)? I'd like "Internationalisation" or "de-nationalisation" because then we don't have to rely on gov'ts for our Internet administration. Many of us are mistrustful of governmental intervention in Internet matters (and with good reason), and would rather remove ALL governments from any oversight role while welcoming them as multi-equal stakeholders. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 02:58:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 02:58:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> Yes, of course, but to state the obvious... While the remit of the US Congress, the US constitution etc.etc. is to govern/protect the US and its citizens, the Internet is global as are the businesses that operate on/with the Internet and particularly the global Internet giants which for various reasons are in large part US based--Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc.; and as well the interests and reach of the US based security system are equally global as evidenced by the statement from Mr. Clapper. So on the one hand we have systems of controls and accountabilities that are national and on the other hand we have actions and interests that are global. And meanwhile we have the same folks who are benefiting from this mismatch acting with all of their very considerable talents and resources to prevent the development of any means to resolve this mismatch as for example by insisting that a status quo global Internet governance regime represents the highest form of ethical and responsible behaviour on the Internet while the only real protections and controls that are available within it are those that benefit (and protect) US citizens alone. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 9:43 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't > see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 7 17:46:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 00:46:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks Message-ID: <51B254C1.4050700@gmail.com> Obama orders US to draw up overseas target list for cyber-attacks *Exclusive:* Top-secret directive steps up offensive cyber capabilities to 'advance US objectives around the world' . * Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill * guardian.co.uk , Friday 7 June 2013 20.06 BST * Jump to comments (371) Obama's move to establish a cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. Photograph: Jim Young/Reuters Barack Obama has ordered his senior national security and intelligence officials to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks, a top secret presidential directive obtained by the Guardian reveals. The 18-page Presidential Policy Directive 20, issued in October last year but never published, states that what it calls Offensive Cyber Effects Operations (OCEO) "can offer unique and unconventional capabilities to advance US national objectives around the world with little or no warning to the adversary or target and with potential effects ranging from subtle to severely damaging". It says the government will "identify potential targets of national importance where OCEO can offer a favorable balance of effectiveness and risk as compared with other instruments of national power". The directive also contemplates the possible use of cyber actions inside the US, though it specifies that no such domestic operations can be conducted without the prior order of the president, except in cases of emergency. The aim of the document was "to put in place tools and a framework to enable government to make decisions" on cyber actions, a senior administration official told the Guardian. The administration published some declassified talking points from the directive in January 2013, but those did not mention the stepping up of America's offensive capability and the drawing up of a target list. Obama's move to establish a potentially aggressive cyber warfare doctrine will heighten fears over the increasing militarization of the internet. The directive's publication comes as the president plans to confront his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping at a summit in California on Friday over alleged Chinese attacks on western targets. Even before the publication of the directive, Beijing had hit back against US criticism, with a senior official claiming to have "mountains of data" on American cyber-attacks he claimed were every bit as serious as those China was accused of having carried out against the US. Presidential Policy Directive 20 defines OCEO as "operations and related programs or activities ... conducted by or on behalf of the United States Government, in or through cyberspace, that are intended to enable or produce cyber effects outside United States government networks." Asked about the stepping up of US offensive capabilities outlined in the directive, a senior administration official said: "Once humans develop the capacity to build boats, we build navies. Once you build airplanes, we build air forces." The official added: "As a citizen, you expect your government to plan for scenarios. We're very interested in having a discussion with our international partners about what the appropriate boundaries are." The document includes caveats and precautions stating that all US cyber operations should conform to US and international law, and that any operations "reasonably likely to result in significant consequences require specific presidential approval". The document says that agencies should consider the consequences of any cyber-action. They include the impact on intelligence-gathering; the risk of retaliation; the impact on the stability and security of the internet itself; the balance of political risks versus gains; and the establishment of unwelcome norms of international behaviour. Among the possible "significant consequences" are loss of life; responsive actions against the US; damage to property; serious adverse foreign policy or economic impacts. The US is understood to have already participated in at least one major cyber attack, the use of the Stuxnet computer worm targeted on Iranian uranium enrichment centrifuges, the legality of which has been the subject of controversy. US reports citing high-level sources within the intelligence services said the US and Israel were responsible for the worm. In the presidential directive, the criteria for offensive cyber operations in the directive is not limited to retaliatory action but vaguely framed as advancing "US national objectives around the world". The revelation that the US is preparing a specific target list for offensive cyber-action is likely to reignite previously raised concerns of security researchers and academics, several of whom have warned that large-scale cyber operations could easily escalate into full-scale military conflict. Sean Lawson, assistant professor in the department of communication at the University of Utah, argues: "When militarist cyber rhetoric results in use of offensive cyber attack it is likely that those attacks will escalate into physical, kinetic uses of force." An intelligence source with extensive knowledge of the National Security Agency's systems told the Guardian the US complaints again China were hypocritical, because America had participated in offensive cyber operations and widespread hacking -- breaking into foreign computer systems to mine information. Provided anonymity to speak critically about classified practices, the source said: "We hack everyone everywhere. We like to make a distinction between us and the others. But we are in almost every country in the world." The US likes to haul China before the international court of public opinion for "doing what we do every day", the source added. One of the unclassified points released by the administration in January stated: "It is our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as preferred courses of action." The full classified directive repeatedly emphasizes that all cyber-operations must be conducted in accordance with US law and only as a complement to diplomatic and military options. But it also makes clear how both offensive and defensive cyber operations are central to US strategy. Under the heading "Policy Reviews and Preparation", a section marked "TS/NF" - top secret/no foreign - states: "The secretary of defense, the DNI [Director of National Intelligence], and the director of the CIA ... shall prepare for approval by the president through the National Security Advisor a plan that identifies potential systems, processes and infrastructure against which the United States should establish and maintain OCEO capabilities..." The deadline for the plan is six months after the approval of the directive. The directive provides that any cyber-operations "intended or likely to produce cyber effects within the United States" require the approval of the president, except in the case of an "emergency cyber action". When such an emergency arises, several departments, including the department of defense, are authorized to conduct such domestic operations without presidential approval. Obama further authorized the use of offensive cyber attacks in foreign nations without their government's consent whenever "US national interests and equities" require such nonconsensual attacks. It expressly reserves the right to use cyber tactics as part of what it calls "anticipatory action taken against imminent threats". The directive makes multiple references to the use of offensive cyber attacks by the US military. It states several times that cyber operations are to be used only in conjunction with other national tools and within the confines of law. When the directive was first reported, lawyers with the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a Freedom of Information Act request for it to be made public. The NSA, in a statement, refused to disclose the directive on the ground that it was classified. In January, the Pentagon announced a major expansion of its Cyber Command Unit, under the command of General Keith Alexander, who is also the director of the NSA. That unit is responsible for executing both offensive and defensive cyber operations. Earlier this year, the Pentagon publicly accused China for the first time of being behind attacks on the US. The Washington Post reported last month that Chinese hackers had gained access to the Pentagon's most advanced military programs. The director of national intelligence, James Clapper, identified cyber threats in general as the top national security threat. Obama officials have repeatedly cited the threat of cyber-attacks to advocate new legislation that would vest the US government with greater powers to monitor and control the internet as a means of guarding against such threats. One such bill currently pending in Congress, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (Cispa), has prompted serious concerns from privacy groups, who say that it would further erode online privacy while doing little to enhance cyber security. In a statement, Caitlin Hayden, national security council spokeswoman, said: "We have not seen the document the Guardian has obtained, as they did not share it with us. However, as we have already publicly acknowledged, last year the president signed a classified presidential directive relating to cyber operations, updating a similar directive dating back to 2004. This step is part of the administration's focus on cybersecurity as a top priority. The cyber threat has evolved, and we have new experiences to take into account. "This directive establishes principles and processes for the use of cyber operations so that cyber tools are integrated with the full array of national security tools we have at our disposal. It provides a whole-of-government approach consistent with the values that we promote domestically and internationally as we have previously articulated in the International Strategy for Cyberspace. "This directive will establish principles and processes that can enable more effective planning, development, and use of our capabilities. It enables us to be flexible, while also exercising restraint in dealing with the threats we face. It continues to be our policy that we shall undertake the least action necessary to mitigate threats and that we will prioritize network defense and law enforcement as the preferred courses of action. The procedures outlined in this directive are consistent with the US Constitution, including the president's role as commander in chief, and other applicable law and policies." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 8 07:15:45 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:15:45 -0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: "I am just doing my job, sorry!" Ah, the technical community... --c.a. On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see how >> it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. > > Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just > stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 07:41:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:41:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something simple. I suspect we won't get consensus on more. And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). Best, Adam On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Deirdre. > > I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which effectively represents a technology that, in combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so basically DRM). > > EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > > It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this reference in 2 - >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML specification: >> >> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> supporting playback of protected content" http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> Hi Catherine, >> >> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >>> 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: >> 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 > > > > > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 07:50:55 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 20:50:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] more from UK Guardian "NSA scandal: what data is being monitored and how does it work?" Message-ID: <8D1A6B5A-81EF-48B9-88A4-45F53AAAC6A8@glocom.ac.jp> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/07/nsa-prism-records-surveillance-questions "Everything you need to know about data gathering from internet companies by the US National Security Agency" Interesting guide to what the Guardian staff seem to know so far. Worth reading. Expect this kind of thing will be updated. Adam -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:00:55 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:00:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> Message-ID: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al l&pagewanted=print Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They opened discussions with national security officials about developing technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their behind-the-scenes transactions. The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence. In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said a person who attended. While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers. The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law." Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction. But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data. Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company. FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 percent from the year before. In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks to download data to an agency laptop. In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission of data, which companies send digitally. Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward information requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we stand with them in that fight." Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed to acknowledge them. Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon the president as he visited Silicon Valley. Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy dogs. On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook a call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term," he wrote. Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:05:06 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:05:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't see >>> how >>> it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:08:51 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 00:08:51 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many diverse views within the IGC. As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. Sala (co-coordinator) On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content." >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection >> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >> reference in 2 - >> >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> specification: >> >> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >> ) >> - supporting playback of protected content" >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >> what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>> on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>> arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >>> 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: >>> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 08:24:31 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 21:24:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi Sala, Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which it was (is :-) ) Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. Best, Adam On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > diverse views within the IGC. > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > Sala > (co-coordinator) > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >> simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >>> EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>> of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> specification: >>> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>> >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>> supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >>> what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>> comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>> >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>> the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>>> 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: >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:31:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:31:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a5401ce6444$15792e20$406b8a60$@gmail.com> [New post] Responding to PRISM: The Internet is global. Dah. Who knew. http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/responding-to-prism-the-internet-is -global-dah-who-knew/ http://tinyurl.com/lflphgd M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:31:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:31:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: That was my concern as well. I have just spent some time trying to discover the process by which a Charter [Proposed] becomes THE Charter in a W3C context. I found a stipulation of a review period of at least four weeks http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess which I assume also applies to Charters. However when did the period of review begin? I also found this email, dated in February this year http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html If the intention is to point out that the W3C working group is planning to exceed its appropriate scope - the EFF objection - then if we want to support the EFF in this objection I think there may be some urgency. If our intention is to make a statement objecting to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5 then that is a separate issue. The problem seems to be being caused by conflating these two things. Why not handle them separately? 1. Is there consensus in the IGC to support the EFF objection? 2. Can the IGC create a consensus statement on DRM in HTML5 generally? Deirdre On 8 June 2013 07:41, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content." >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection >> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >> reference in 2 - >> >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> specification: >> >> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >> ) >> - supporting playback of protected content" >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >> what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>> on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>> arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >>> 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: >>> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 08:51:33 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 08:51:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: And for another perspective on the issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22808872 Deirdre On 8 June 2013 08:00, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced > > e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al > l&pagewanted=print > > Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program > > SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand > easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user > data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In > the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. > > Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies > were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They > opened discussions with national security officials about developing > technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data > of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some > cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. > > The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at > the > center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look > to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos > and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the > government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their > behind-the-scenes transactions. > > The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which > owns > YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; > Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the > discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under > the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions > spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from > discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their > existence. > > In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed > was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure > physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some > instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government > would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would > retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. > > The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, > chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet > with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. > Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of > the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would > collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said > a person who attended. > > While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal > requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is > not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. > > Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial > descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. > > Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program > providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line > between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect > user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court > orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, > indiscriminate access to its servers. > > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, > including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for > sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve > access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data > is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. > > "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the > information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry > Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on > Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the > law." > > Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the > same distinction. > > But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were > essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the > key, > people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such > a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. > > The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company > lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is > not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full > access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and > efficient way to hand over the data. > > Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of > cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it > is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even > with others at the company, and in some cases have national security > clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a > lawyer representing a technology company. > > FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep > for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with > the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 > percent from the year before. > > In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a > tech > company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer > representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed > software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks > to download data to an agency laptop. > > In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time > transmission > of data, which companies send digitally. > > Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government > requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward > information > requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we > stand with them in that fight." > > Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively > against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter > publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, > but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed > to acknowledge them. > > Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed > Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing > outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and > calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon > the president as he visited Silicon Valley. > > Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, > President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike > McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod > Khosla, > the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy > dogs. > > On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook > a > call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect > everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want > over the long term," he wrote. > > Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and > Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen > and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 > Modify Your Subscription: > > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 > 08 > Unsubscribe Now: > > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 > 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 09:32:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:32:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> So where does the "Technical Community" stand on these issues? (For example, lobbying the US Congress re: the Patriot Act is hardly appropriate as the response for a globally responsible and responsive community I would have thought.) M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:05 AM To: Carlos A. Afonso Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: > "I am just doing my job, sorry!" > > Ah, the technical community... Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > --c.a. > > > On 06/07/2013 10:42 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 6:56 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >>> >>> I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't >>> see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian >>> Internet users. >> >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating a fact that has been evident for many decades now. >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 03:38:54 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:38:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just stating > a fact that has been evident for many decades now. And that contextualises the single rooters argument on CIR. Which is why "US exceptionalism" implicitly or explicitly is an issue for discussion. And shows where the buck stops for people on this list. Hence a serious lack of analytic credibility for single rooters, and Multistakeholderism that cannot deal with INTIMATE relationship between the US govt and corporations. Why is it that governments are seen as presumptively bad but corporations who behave like this (denying what the government affirms - PR or BS?)? -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 09:45:43 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:45:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 09:53:40 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 09:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 08:08, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > I beleive, we seem to be developing strong support for the cleaned up version of a short statement provided by Adam Peake. On the other hand, I see no support for the dog's breakfast statement at http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 And on the last hand, has our making any statement of support taken so long it is becoming irrelevant? avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sat Jun 8 10:13:46 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:13:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <86638C69-C925-4340-A88C-9414FA33EB0D@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130608141346.GA6229@tarvainen.info> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:53:40AM -0400, Avri Doria (avri at ella.com) wrote: > we seem to be developing strong support for the cleaned > up version of a short statement provided by Adam Peake. Yes. > And on the last hand, has our making any statement of support taken > so long it is becoming irrelevant? This. If it hasn't already, it will soon. Whatever might be gained by crafting a longer statement will be lost many times over due to the time it would take. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:16:36 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:16:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> Ahh, there is the rub. The single rooters made common cause with with this agenda, and marginalised the critics calling for legitimacy. Wittingly or (worse) unwittingly, the public interest has been abused. Is the technical political? We have had this discussion, but this puts matters into context. It also helps locate the theoretical, ethical and political position of civil society into real historical time. And that speaks volumes. American safeguards are just no good. It also puts Auerbach's point about points of abuse into sharp focus - he is vindicated to a large extent: irrespective of the technical way the spying was done. A lot more persuasion will be necessary on what this reveals, particularly those a certain Third World persuasion, the Lessig's, EFF, etc. We can only hope that this (Cassandra) tragedy results in public interest being better represented in a meaningful way (but we cannot hold our breath to be realistic... ). We can also say that Norbert too has been vindicated for opening up spaces for certain dialogues that were somewhat marginal on this list. This one is a biggie. Cautious change may result or shamelessness. Riaz On 2013/06/08 03:05 PM, McTim wrote: > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: >> "I am just doing my job, sorry!" >> >> Ah, the technical community... > > Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:19:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:19:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. *A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.* Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29 ), from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,/ vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:04:12 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:04:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com In-Reply-To: <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> References: <7A7FC254-3003-46FF-9ACB-BD3DE8A84E21@farber.net> <0a3801ce643f$db08d730$911a8590$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B339DC.1@gmail.com> Civil society representatives that include these companies will need to clarify how they participate in civil society. A point MS will have to codify into language, if it is not to be a site of abuse, Riaz On 2013/06/08 03:00 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 7:30 AM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program - NYTimes.com > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/technology/tech-companies-bristling-conced > e-to-government-surveillance-efforts.html?ref=global-home&_r=0&pagewanted=al > l&pagewanted=print > > Tech Companies Concede to Surveillance Program > > SAN FRANCISCO - When government officials came to Silicon Valley to demand > easier ways for the world's largest Internet companies to turn over user > data as part of a secret surveillance program, the companies bristled. In > the end, though, many cooperated at least a bit. > > Twitter declined to make it easier for the government. But other companies > were more compliant, according to people briefed on the negotiations. They > opened discussions with national security officials about developing > technical methods to more efficiently and securely share the personal data > of foreign users in response to lawful government requests. And in some > cases, they changed their computer systems to do so. > > The negotiations shed a light on how Internet companies, increasingly at the > center of people's personal lives, interact with the spy agencies that look > to their vast trove of information - e-mails, videos, online chats, photos > and search queries - for intelligence. They illustrate how intricately the > government and tech companies work together, and the depth of their > behind-the-scenes transactions. > > The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns > YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; > Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the > discussions. The companies were legally required to share the data under the > Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions > spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from > discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their > existence. > > In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed > was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure > physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some > instances on company servers. Through these online rooms, the government > would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would > retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. > > The negotiations have continued in recent months, as Martin E. Dempsey, > chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, traveled to Silicon Valley to meet > with executives including those at Facebook, Microsoft, Google and Intel. > Though the official purpose of those meetings was to discuss the future of > the Internet, the conversations also touched on how the companies would > collaborate with the government in its intelligence-gathering efforts, said > a person who attended. > > While handing over data in response to a legitimate FISA request is a legal > requirement, making it easier for the government to get the information is > not, which is why Twitter could decline to do so. > > Details on the discussions help explain the disparity between initial > descriptions of the government program and the companies' responses. > > Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program > providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line > between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect > user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court > orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, > indiscriminate access to its servers. > > The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, > including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for > sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve > access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data > is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. > > "The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the > information stored in our data centers," Google's chief executive, Larry > Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on > Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the > law." > > Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the > same distinction. > > But instead of adding a back door to their servers, the companies were > essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, > people briefed on the negotiations said. Facebook, for instance, built such > a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said. > > The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company > lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is > not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full > access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and > efficient way to hand over the data. > > Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of > cooperation with national security officials because employees whose job it > is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even > with others at the company, and in some cases have national security > clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a > lawyer representing a technology company. > > FISA orders can range from inquiries about specific people to a broad sweep > for intelligence, like logs of certain search terms, lawyers who work with > the orders said. There were 1,856 such requests last year, an increase of 6 > percent from the year before. > > In one recent instance, the National Security Agency sent an agent to a tech > company's headquarters to monitor a suspect in a cyberattack, a lawyer > representing the company said. The agent installed government-developed > software on the company's server and remained at the site for several weeks > to download data to an agency laptop. > > In other instances, the lawyer said, the agency seeks real-time transmission > of data, which companies send digitally. > > Twitter spokesmen did not respond to questions about the government > requests, but said in general of the company's philosophy toward information > requests: Users "have a right to fight invalid government requests, and we > stand with them in that fight." > > Twitter, Google and other companies have typically fought aggressively > against requests they believe reach too far. Google, Microsoft and Twitter > publish transparency reports detailing government requests for information, > but these reports do not include FISA requests because they are not allowed > to acknowledge them. > > Yet since tech companies' cooperation with the government was revealed > Thursday, tech executives have been performing a familiar dance, expressing > outrage at the extent of the government's power to access personal data and > calling for more transparency, while at the same time heaping praise upon > the president as he visited Silicon Valley. > > Even as the White House scrambled to defend its online surveillance, > President Obama was mingling with donors at the Silicon Valley home of Mike > McCue, Flipboard's chief, eating dinner at the opulent home of Vinod Khosla, > the venture capitalist, and cracking jokes about Mr. Khosla's big, shaggy > dogs. > > On Friday, Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, posted on Facebook a > call for more government transparency. "It's the only way to protect > everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want > over the long term," he wrote. > > Reporting was contributed by Nick Bilton, Vindu Goel, Nicole Perlroth and > Somini Sengupta in San Francisco; Edward Wyatt in Washington; Brian X. Chen > and Leslie Kaufman in New York; and Nick Wingfield in Seattle. > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 > Modify Your Subscription: > https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 > 08 > Unsubscribe Now: > https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 > 7c5b007&post_id=20130608073012:C6A4997C-D02E-11E2-917C-C471030EBDDA > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 10:25:47 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:55:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <51B33CC4.2020309@gmail.com> Message-ID: <596BD008-BDD3-4E86-BFEF-392588F43F80@hserus.net> This is surprising. A so-called "single rooter" McTim expresses opposition of the exact same thing the splinter minority rump group we have here of "third worldists" and other assorted purveyors of ideological cant are opposed to, and this is twisted into yet another highly predictable denunciation of the technical community at large? And is the centurion hammering nails into Christ's body a metaphor for something more recent where the "orders are orders" defense was tried, and rejected? In either case, a soldier following or refusing to follow a criminal order is hardly the right analogy to use in any kind of civilian context. --srs (iPad) On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:46, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Ahh, there is the rub. > > The single rooters made common cause with with this agenda, and marginalised the critics calling for legitimacy. Wittingly or (worse) unwittingly, the public interest has been abused. > > Is the technical political? We have had this discussion, but this puts matters into context. It also helps locate the theoretical, ethical and political position of civil society into real historical time. And that speaks volumes. American safeguards are just no good. It also puts Auerbach's point about points of abuse into sharp focus - he is vindicated to a large extent: irrespective of the technical way the spying was done. > > A lot more persuasion will be necessary on what this reveals, particularly those a certain Third World persuasion, the Lessig's, EFF, etc. We can only hope that this (Cassandra) tragedy results in public interest being better represented in a meaningful way (but we cannot hold our breath to be realistic... ). We can also say that Norbert too has been vindicated for opening up spaces for certain dialogues that were somewhat marginal on this list. > > This one is a biggie. Cautious change may result or shamelessness. > > Riaz > > > > > > On 2013/06/08 03:05 PM, McTim wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Yes, as the centurion said to Christ while driving a nail through His hands: >>> "I am just doing my job, sorry!" >>> >>> Ah, the technical community... >> >> Isn't it just a wee bit of a stretch to blame the TC for the NSA spying on us? >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 10:25:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 17:25:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program Message-ID: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> Exclusive: Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program Posted on June 8, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Top NSA Official: Government Tapping CONTENT, Not Just Metadata ... Using Bogus "Secret Interpretation" of Patriot Act We reported in 2008 that /foreign/ companies have had key roles scooping up Americans' communications for the NSA: At least two foreign companies play key roles in processing the information. Specifically, an Israeli company called Narus processes all of the information tapped by AT &T (AT & T taps, and gives to the NSA, copies of all phone calls it processes), and an Israeli company called Verint processes information tapped by Verizon (Verizon also taps, and gives to the NSA, all of its calls). Business Insider notes today: The newest information regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal raises an important question: If America's tech giants didn't 'participate knowingly' in the dragnet of electronic communication, how does the NSA get all of their data ? One theory: the NSA hired two secretive Israeli companies to wiretap the U.S. telecommunications network. In April 2012 Wired's James Bamford --- author of the book "The Shadow Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America " --- reported that two companies with extensive links to Israel's intelligence service provided hardware and software the U.S. telecommunications network for the National Security Agency (NSA). By doing so, this would imply, companies like Facebook and Google don't have to explicitly provide the NSA with access to their servers because major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AT&T and Verizon already allows the U.S. signals intelligence agency to eavesdrop on all of their data anyway. From Bamford (emphasis ours): "According to a former Verizon employee briefed on the program, Verint , owned by Comverse Technology, *taps the communication lines at Verizon*... *At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are* powered by software and hardware from Narus , now owned by Boeing , a discovery made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein in 2004." Klein, an engineer, discovered the "secret room" at AT&T central office in San Francisco , through which the NSA actively "*vacuumed up Internet and phone-call data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T*" through the wiretapping rooms, emphasizing that "much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely domestic." NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake corroborated Klein's assertions, testifying that while the NSA is using Israeli-made NARUS hardware to "seize and save all personal electronic communications." Both Verint and Narus were founded in Israel in the 1990s. *** "*Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can record*," Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus , a Mountain View, California company, said . "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over internet protocol) calls." With a telecom wiretap the NSA only needs companies like Microsoft, Google, and Apple to passively participate while the agency to intercepts, stores, and analyzes their communication data. The indirect nature of the agreement would provide tech giants with plausible deniability. **And having a foreign contractor bug the telecom grid would mean that the NSA gained access to most of the domestic traffic flowing through the U.S. without *technically* doing it themselves. This would provide the NSA, whose official mission is to spy on foreign communications, with plausible deniability regarding domestic snooping. The reason that Business Insider is speculating about the use of private Israeli companies to thwart the law is that 2 high-ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee -- Senators Wyden and Udall -- have long said that the government has adopted a /secret interpretation/ of section 215 of the Patriot Act which would shock Americans , because it provides a breathtakingly wide program of spying. Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney -- a 32-year NSA veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the agency's global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York Times documentary , and the source for much of what we know about NSA spying) -- said that the government is using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain: *Any* data *in any third party*, like any *commercial data* that's held about U.S. citizens .... (relevant quote starts at 4:19). I called Binney to find out what he meant. I began by asking Binney if Business Insider's speculation was correct. Specifically, I asked Binney if the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that a foreign company -- like Narus, for example -- could vacuum up information on Americans, and then the NSA would obtain that data under the excuse of spying on /foreign/ entities ... i.e. an Israeli company. Binney replied no ... it was /broader/ than that. Binney explained that the government is taking the position that it can gather and use /any information/ about American citizens living on U.S. soil if it comes from: *Any* service provider ... *any* third party ... *any commercial company -- like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical companies* -- holding data about anyone, *any U.S. citizen* or anyone else. I followed up to make sure I understood what Binney was saying, asking whether the government's secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that the government could use any information as long as it came from a private company ... /foreign or domestic/. In other words, the government is using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was not using its governmental powers (called "acting under color of law" by judges), but that it was /private/ companies just doing their thing (which the government /happened/ to order all of the private companies to collect and fork over). Binney confirmed that this was correct. This is what the phone company spying program and the Prism program -- the government spying on big Internet companies -- is based upon. Since all digital communications go through private company networks, websites or other systems, the government just demands that all of the companies turn them over. Let's use an analogy to understand how bogus this interpretation of the Patriot Act is. This argument is analogous to a Congressman hiring a hit man to shoot someone asking too many questions, and loaning him his gun to carry out the deed ... and then later saying "I didn't do it, it was that /private citizen/!" That wouldn't pass the laugh test even at an unaccredited, web-based law school offered through a porn site. I then asked the NSA veteran if the government's claim that it is only spying on metadata -- and not content -- was correct. We have extensively documented that the government is likely recording /content/ as well. (And the government has previously admitted to "accidentally" collecting more information on Americans than was legal , and then gagged the judges so they couldn't disclose the nature or extent of the violations .) Binney said that was /not/ true; the government is gathering everything, */including content/*. Binney explained -- as he has many times before -- that the government is storing /everything/, and creating a searchable database ... to be used whenever it wants, for any purpose it wants (even just going after someone it doesn't like). Binney said that former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente is correct when he says that /no/ digital data is safe (Clemente says that /all/ digital communications are being recorded). Binney gave me an idea of how powerful Narus recording systems are. There are probably 18 of them around the country, and they can each record 10 gigabytes of data -- the equivalent of a million and a quarter emails with 1,000 characters each -- per /second/. Binney next confirmed the statement of the author of the Patriot Act -- Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner -- that the NSA spying programs violate the Patriot Act . After all, the Patriot Act is focused on spying on /external/ threats ... not on Americans. Binney asked rhetorically: "How can an American court [FISA or otherwise] tell telecoms to cough up all domestic data?!" Update: Binney sent the following clarifying email about content collection: It's clear to me that they are collecting most e-mail in full plus other text type data on the web. As for phone calls, I don't think they would record/transcribe the approximately 3 billion US-to-US calls every day. It's more likely that they are recording and transcribing calls made by the 500,000 to 1,000,000 targets in the US and the world. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 10:28:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 19:58:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1193463A-EC54-4842-B324-9182EC2B3BD2@hserus.net> And standing armies are a feature of most if not all democracies, around the world, for some centuries since the mid 1700s. Even one where the government is as decentralized as, say, Switzerland. We don't quite have armed soldiers doing any of this snooping, either. So how or why does this analogy come into the picture? --srs (iPad) On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:49, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. > Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? >> >> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ >> >> We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. >> >> Kerry Brown >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Sat Jun 8 10:41:29 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 11:41:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of the Spying Program In-Reply-To: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> References: <51B33EE5.9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B34299.2080904@cafonso.ca> It is obvious that wiretapping the telecom nets plays a central role in keeping an eye on every American and anyone else whose Internet traffic passes through US operators (not to speak of what the US is able to concoct on location in other countries). The 2006 NSA+AT&T case is a scandalous example, which shows they do not need to resort to Israeli techies to do the job. My best overall source continues to be the EFF: https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/faq And, of course, for the specific case I mention, Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/04/70619 []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/08/2013 11:25 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Exclusive: Top NSA Whistleblower Spills the Beans on the Real Scope of > the Spying Program > > Posted on June 8, 2013 > > by WashingtonsBlog > > > Top NSA Official: Government Tapping CONTENT, Not Just Metadata … > Using Bogus “Secret Interpretation” of Patriot Act > > We reported > > in 2008 that /foreign/ companies have had key roles scooping up > Americans’ communications for the NSA: > > At least two foreign companies > > play key roles in processing the information. > > Specifically, an Israeli company called Narus processes all of the > information tapped by AT &T (AT & T taps, and gives to the NSA, > copies of all phone calls it processes), and an Israeli company > called Verint processes information tapped by Verizon (Verizon also > taps, and gives to the NSA, all of its calls). > > Business Insider notes > > today: > > The newest information regarding the NSA domestic spying scandal > > raises an important question: If America’s tech giants didn’t > ‘participate knowingly’ in the dragnet of electronic communication, > how does the NSA get all of their data > ? > > One theory: the NSA hired two secretive Israeli companies to wiretap > the U.S. telecommunications network. > > In April 2012 Wired’s James Bamford — author of the book “The Shadow > Factory: The NSA from 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America > ” > — reported that two companies with extensive links to Israel’s > intelligence service provided hardware and software the U.S. > telecommunications network > > for the National Security Agency (NSA). > > By doing so, this would imply, companies like Facebook and Google > don’t have to explicitly provide the NSA with access to their > servers because major Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as AT&T > and Verizon already allows the U.S. signals intelligence agency to > eavesdrop on all of their data anyway. > > From Bamford > > (emphasis ours): > > “According to a former Verizon > employee > briefed on the program, Verint , owned by > Comverse Technology, *taps the communication lines at Verizon*… > > *At AT&T the wiretapping rooms are* powered by software and > hardware from Narus > , > now owned by Boeing > , a discovery > made by AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein > in > 2004.” > > Klein, an engineer, discovered the “secret room” at AT&T central > office in San Francisco > , > through which the NSA actively “*vacuumed up Internet and phone-call > data from ordinary Americans with the cooperation of AT&T*” through > the wiretapping rooms, emphasizing > > that “much of the data sent through AT&T to the NSA was purely > domestic.” > > NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake corroborated Klein’s assertions, > testifying > > that while the NSA is using Israeli-made NARUS hardware > to > “seize and save > > all personal electronic communications.” > > Both Verint and Narus were founded in Israel in the 1990s. > > *** > > “*Anything that comes through (an internet protocol network), we can > record*,” Steve Bannerman, marketing vice president of Narus > , a Mountain View, California company, said > . “We > can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see > what web pages they clicked on, we can reconstruct their (voice over > internet protocol) calls.” > > With a telecom wiretap the NSA only needs companies like Microsoft, > Google, and Apple to passively participate while the agency to > intercepts, stores, and analyzes their communication data. The > indirect nature of the agreement would provide tech giants with > plausible deniability. > > **And having a foreign contractor bug the telecom grid would mean > that the NSA gained access to most of the domestic traffic flowing > through the U.S. without *technically* doing it themselves. > > This would provide the NSA, whose official mission is to spy on > foreign communications, with plausible deniability regarding > domestic snooping. > > The reason that Business Insider is speculating about the use of private > Israeli companies to thwart the law is that 2 high-ranking members of > the Senate Intelligence Committee – Senators Wyden and Udall – have long > said that the government has adopted a /secret interpretation/ of > section 215 of the Patriot Act which would shock Americans > , > because it provides a breathtakingly wide program of spying. > > Last December, top NSA whistleblower William Binney – a 32-year NSA > veteran with the title of senior technical director, who headed the > agency’s global digital data gathering program (featured in a New York > Times documentary > , > and the source for much of what we know > about > NSA spying) – said that the government is using a secret interpretation > of Section 215 of the Patriot Act which allows the government to obtain: > > *Any* data *in any third party*, like any *commercial data* that’s > held about U.S. citizens …. > > (relevant quote starts at 4:19). > > I called Binney to find out what he meant. > > I began by asking Binney if Business Insider’s speculation was correct. > Specifically, I asked Binney if the government’s secret interpretation > of Section 215 of the Patriot Act was that a foreign company – like > Narus, for example – could vacuum up information on Americans, and then > the NSA would obtain that data under the excuse of spying on /foreign/ > entities … i.e. an Israeli company. > > Binney replied no … it was /broader/ than that. > > Binney explained that the government is taking the position that it can > gather and use /any information/ about American citizens living on U.S. > soil if it comes from: > > *Any* service provider … *any* third party … *any commercial company > – like a telecom or internet service provider, libraries, medical > companies* – holding data about anyone, *any U.S. citizen* or anyone > else. > > I followed up to make sure I understood what Binney was saying, asking > whether the government’s secret interpretation of Section 215 of the > Patriot Act was that the government could use any information as long as > it came from a private company … /foreign or domestic/. In other words, > the government is using the antiquated, bogus legal argument that it was > not using its governmental powers (called “acting under color of law” by > judges), but that it was /private/ companies just doing their thing > (which the government /happened/ to order all of the private companies > to collect and fork over). > > Binney confirmed that this was correct. This is what the phone company > spying program and the Prism > > program – the government spying on big Internet companies – is based > upon. Since all digital communications go through private company > networks, websites or other systems, the government just demands that > all of the companies > > turn them over. > > Let’s use an analogy to understand how bogus this interpretation of the > Patriot Act is. This argument is analogous to a Congressman hiring a hit > man to shoot someone asking too many questions, and loaning him his gun > to carry out the deed … and then later saying “I didn’t do it, it was > that /private citizen/!” That wouldn’t pass the laugh test even at an > unaccredited, web-based law school offered through a porn site. > > I then asked the NSA veteran if the government’s claim that it is only > spying on metadata – and not content – was correct. We have extensively > documented that the government is likely recording /content/ > > as well. (And the government has previously admitted to “accidentally” > collecting more information on Americans than was legal > , and > then gagged the judges so they couldn’t disclose the nature or extent of > the violations > .) > > Binney said that was /not/ true; the government is gathering everything, > */including content/*. > > Binney explained – as he has many times before > > – that the government is storing /everything/, and creating a searchable > database … to be used whenever it wants, for any purpose it wants (even > just going after someone it doesn’t like). > > Binney said that former FBI counter-terrorism agent Tim Clemente is > correct when he says > that /no/ > digital data is safe (Clemente says that /all/ digital communications > are being recorded). > > Binney gave me an idea of how powerful Narus recording systems are. > There are probably 18 of them around the country, and they can each > record 10 gigabytes of data – the equivalent of a million and a quarter > emails with 1,000 characters each – per /second/. > > Binney next confirmed the statement of the author of the Patriot Act – > Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner – that the NSA spying programs violate the > Patriot Act > . > After all, the Patriot Act is focused on spying on /external/ threats … > not on Americans. > > Binney asked rhetorically: “How can an American court [FISA or > otherwise] tell telecoms to cough up all domestic data?!” > > Update: Binney sent the following clarifying email about content collection: > > It’s clear to me that they are collecting most e-mail in full plus > other text type data on the web. > > As for phone calls, I don’t think they would record/transcribe the > approximately 3 billion US-to-US calls every day. It’s more likely > that they are recording and transcribing calls made by the 500,000 > to 1,000,000 targets in the US and the world. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 10:43:35 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 14:43:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: June-08-13 7:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 11:06:16 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 18:06:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> I believe in the reality of choice. To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of people it strengthened in power. 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all irrespective of property ownership). 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like. 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be free men, including free to keep slaves. Riaz On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my > contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this > type of behaviour by those in power? > > Kerry Brown > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz K Tayob > *Sent:* June-08-13 7:19 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given > to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the > same tendency to render the head too large for the body. *A standing > military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe > companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger > have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.* Among the Romans > it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was > apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the > pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. > > * Speech, Constitutional Convention > (1787-06-29 > ), > from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,/ > vol. I [1] > > (1911), p. 465 > > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 11:24:38 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 11:24:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 3:38 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > >> From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] >> >> Well it is the job of the NSA to spy on you. Not defending it, just >> stating >> a fact that has been evident for many decades now. > > > And that contextualises the single rooters argument on CIR. It does no such thing. > > Which is why "US exceptionalism" implicitly or explicitly is an issue for > discussion. And shows where the buck stops for people on this list. For the umpteenth time, there are zero "US exceptionalists" on this list. > > Hence a serious lack of analytic credibility for single rooters, and > Multistakeholderism that cannot deal with INTIMATE relationship It's a legal relationship. Would you ask that Google/FB/Yahoo!, etc be answerable to the UN? If so, you (and Michael, et. al. in their calls for a "global framework") are guilty of "Magical Thinking" if you seriously contend that gov'ts will give up that much sovereignty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking between the > US govt and corporations. Why is it that governments are seen as > presumptively bad but corporations who behave like this (denying what the > government affirms - PR or BS?)? Because this is government imposed "evil". Do I wish the Yahoo!'s and FB's had fought harder against this? sure! If I ran FB or Goolge, would I do the same faced with a legal order from a "secret court" that would punish me personally if I revealed the existence of said order? Probably. I might look into moving ops offshore (Ireland) in that case...oh wait we are against that as well. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 11:50:51 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:50:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> Message-ID: I’m still not sure if you agree or disagree with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power. I understand that historically things were different. I understand that some people don’t think that we have a chance to change this. I understand that many people have written or spoken about this. What I don’t understand so far is if you agree or disagree that in a modern democracy this can be changed. I’m not saying it would be easy or even that the odds are good. All I’m saying is the chance exists and I for one am working to making it happen. I don’t believe that defeatism is useful in reality or as an argument against working for change. Kerry Brown From: Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] Sent: June-08-13 8:06 AM To: Kerry Brown Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk I believe in the reality of choice. To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of people it strengthened in power. 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all irrespective of property ownership). 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like. 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be free men, including free to keep slaves. Riaz On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those in power? Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: June-08-13 7:19 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. * Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:23:23 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:23:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NYTimes.com: New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability In-Reply-To: <282F3D53-E2D2-4564-A0BE-E190EAB676DA@farber.net> References: <201306081547.r58Fl4J3015990@mustang.oldcity.dca.net> <282F3D53-E2D2-4564-A0BE-E190EAB676DA@farber.net> Message-ID: <0afe01ce6464$84b7fa80$8e27ef80$@gmail.com> Note the date... M -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 11:49 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] NYTimes.com: New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability WASHINGTON | February 20, 2005 New Nuclear Sub Is Said to Have Special Eavesdropping Ability By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS The submarine Jimmy Carter is able to tap undersea cables and eavesdrop on the communications passing through them, intelligence experts say. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608114922:FAD2D69A-D052-11E2-812B-B7F5FFE5F9C2 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:24:30 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:24:30 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been > clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which > it was (is :-) > < > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2013/contributions/contributions/Civil_Society_Caucus_Feb_2013%20copy.pdf > >) > > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the process of preparing the statement. > Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this > mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to > this > > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse > views > > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > > diverse views within the IGC. > > > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease > out > > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the > statement > > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it > can > > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > > > Sala > > (co-coordinator) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> > >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying > IGC > >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know > >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro > >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something > >> simple. > >> > >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> > >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and > >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example > see > >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group > charter > >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> > >> > >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I > so > >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > enables > >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, > which is > >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >>> basically DRM). > >>> > >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to > basically > >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, > through > >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the > use of > >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >>> > >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC > >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Catherine Roy > >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) > >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > morning. > >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > recent > >>> EFF statement. > >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of > scope > >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > determination > >>> of end-user usage of content." > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > objection is > >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > >>> reference in 2 - > >>> > >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > >>> specification: > >>> > >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > cases > >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > >>> > >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >>> supporting playback of protected content" > >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >>> > >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > the > >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > was > >>> what we were asked about in the first place? > >>> Thank you > >>> Deirdre > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Catherine, > >>>> > >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to > the > >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable > facts, I > >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one > of the > >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on > the W3C > >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > margin > >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, > be on > >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > browsers > >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > shutting out > >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in > this > >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it > could > >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a > wordsmith and > >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to > see > >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and > sovereignty > >>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Catherine > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Catherine Roy > >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Sala, > >>>> > >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > Perhaps you > >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > people > >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >>>> > >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > supports > >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has > >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital > >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > speaks > >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > >>>> comments and suggest text. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear All, > >>>>> > >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence > still in > >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the > balance of > >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like > the DRM > >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". > This is > >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by > >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). > I have > >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in > relation to > >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the > Statement > >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment > in the > >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more > effective > >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my > apologies > >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >>>>> > >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that > whilst > >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The > key > >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes > are of > >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is > on the > >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >>>>> on the revised statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >>>>> > >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation > >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium > (W3C) > >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people > across > >>>>> the planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to > an > >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be > to shut > >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability > and > >>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > enable > >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing > resources > >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse > content. In > >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious > resource > >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant > ease of > >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the > EFF's > >>>>> arguments in this regard. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>>> Suva > >>>> Fiji > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> 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: > >>>> 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: > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 12:33:27 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:33:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > oh wait we are against that as well. Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to create them. Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. avri Though some are just one way glass -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 12:35:57 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 12:35:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi, As far as know those accused of whinging, did participate. We offered edits and we are even the ones who went to the site and entered comments. We did not have the permission to edit text so we didn't. Really! avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:24, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi Sala, > > Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been > clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which > it was (is :-) > ) > > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the process of preparing the statement. > > Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this > mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you > > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only > > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to this > > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse views > > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was > > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many > > diverse views within the IGC. > > > > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease out > > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been > > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the statement > > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it can > > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. > > > > Sala > > (co-coordinator) > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> > >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know > >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro > >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something > >> simple. > >> > >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> > >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering and > >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example see > >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> > >> > >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so > >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal > >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables > >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is > >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >>> basically DRM). > >>> > >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically > >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting > >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group > >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through > >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of > >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >>> > >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC > >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Catherine Roy > >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. > >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent > >>> EFF statement. > >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", > >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope > >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination > >>> of end-user usage of content." > >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is > >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this > >>> reference in 2 - > >>> > >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > >>> specification: > >>> > >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use cases > >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: > >>> > >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >>> supporting playback of protected content" > >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >>> > >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the > >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was > >>> what we were asked about in the first place? > >>> Thank you > >>> Deirdre > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Catherine, > >>>> > >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >>>> > >>>> Best, > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the > >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I > >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the > >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C > >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin > >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on > >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers > >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out > >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this > >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could > >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and > >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see > >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty > >>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Catherine > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Catherine Roy > >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Sala, > >>>> > >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site > >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you > >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people > >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >>>> > >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >>>> > >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital > >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and speaks > >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >>>> > >>>> Adam > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your > >>>> comments and suggest text. > >>>> > >>>> Kind Regards, > >>>> Sala > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Dear All, > >>>>> > >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in > >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of > >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM > >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is > >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by > >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have > >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to > >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > >>>>> > >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement > >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the > >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective > >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies > >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >>>>> > >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst > >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key > >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >>>>> > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of > >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the > >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments > >>>>> on the revised statement. > >>>>> > >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >>>>> > >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and > >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation > >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across > >>>>> the planet. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an > >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut > >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and > >>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to enable > >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing resources > >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse content. In > >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious resource > >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant ease of > >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. > >>>>> > >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's > >>>>> arguments in this regard. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>>> Suva > >>>> Fiji > >>>> > >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> 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: > >>>> 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: > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 12:52:13 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:52:13 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Thanks Deirdre. What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:31 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > That was my concern as well. > I have just spent some time trying to discover the process by which a > Charter [Proposed] becomes THE Charter in a W3C context. I found a > stipulation of a review period of at least four weeks > http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/processdoc.html#GAProcess which > I assume also applies to Charters. However when did the period of review > begin? > I also found this email, dated in February this year > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html-admin/2013Feb/0122.html > If the intention is to point out that the W3C working group is planning to > exceed its appropriate scope - the EFF objection - then if we want to > support the EFF in this objection I think there may be some urgency. > If our intention is to make a statement objecting to the inclusion of DRM > in HTML5 then that is a separate issue. > The problem seems to be being caused by conflating these two things. > Why not handle them separately? > 1. Is there consensus in the IGC to support the EFF objection? > 2. Can the IGC create a consensus statement on DRM in HTML5 generally? > Deirdre > > > On 8 June 2013 07:41, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I >> know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> something simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >>> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >>> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable >>> the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>> recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >>> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a >>> detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> specification: >>> >>> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support >>> use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions >>> for: >>> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >>> ) >>> - supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps >>>> you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >>>> people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>> comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML >>>>> 5? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>> >>>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>> the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >>>>> to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>> communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>>> 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: >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:01:36 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:01:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA Message-ID: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Hi, Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. So figured you all should be warned, in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. avri * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been elected. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Sat Jun 8 13:04:14 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:04:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> Message-ID: <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> > Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the > Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an > improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. Avri, just a small nit. FISC (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) predates PATRIOT by decades. It was created in 1979, in response to the Church Committee's findings of abuses by the Nixon Administration. WaPo has a nice little text and graphic summary overview at http://wapo.st/18dUS1I -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:33 AM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user > data, > > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > > > oh wait we are against that as well. > > > Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and > others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. > > Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not > ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? > > BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside > their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to > create them. > > Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the > Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an > improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all > countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the > fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we > all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. > > > avri > > Though some are just one way glass -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 13:04:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:04:37 -0700 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: <20130608170437.GB27942@hserus.net> Avri Doria [08/06/13 13:01 -0400]: >Hi, > >Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. I thought the preferred word here is "tangential"? :) In any case, I must thank you for fair and accurate labeling of this email And more seriously, I agree that this is something that should concern privacy advocates. And opens up questions such as what happens when say a conviction is overturned on appeal, or record expunged for other reasons (say a juvenile is punished) .. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:04:59 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:04:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? from the CHARTER: > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 13:06:26 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:06:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> <001701ce646a$3bb1c4a0$b3154de0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <96E78B17-EE3E-40DC-92D4-A784975E9C84@ella.com> thanks for the correction. avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:04, James S. Tyre wrote: >> Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the >> Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an >> improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. > > Avri, just a small nit. FISC (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court) predates PATRIOT by decades. It was > created in 1979, in response to the Church Committee's findings of abuses by the Nixon Administration. > > WaPo has a nice little text and graphic summary overview at http://wapo.st/18dUS1I > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > https://www.eff.org > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] >> On Behalf Of Avri Doria >> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:33 AM >> To: IGC >> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user >> data, >> >> >> On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: >> >>> oh wait we are against that as well. >> >> >> Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Iceland and >> others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. >> >> Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not >> ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? >> >> BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside >> their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to >> create them. >> >> Oh, and yes in terms of the US (as I always have been) I am for doing away with the >> Patriot Act and the secrecy of FISA courts, though I do acknowledge that they were an >> improvement on Patriot Act without FISA courts and congressional oversight. I favor all >> countries doing away with all geographical data borders of every sort. But that is in the >> fat chance category, so I live knowing i live in a glass house, and recognizing that we >> all live in glass houses*, I am constantly shopping for curtains. >> >> >> avri >> >> Though some are just one way glass > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:09:07 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 22:39:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into the 'mugshot' stage -C On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. > > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to take > a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. > > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. > So figured you all should be warned, > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. > > avri > > > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been > elected. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:11:33 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 22:41:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> Message-ID: Wouldnt polling be a viable mechanism to get consensus data? -C On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. > > > when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? > > from the CHARTER: > > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus > decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours > of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a > rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > > I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. > > avri > > _________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 13:12:23 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 02:12:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Hi Sala, I think I started the process. Contributed the first comments. And edited on the wiki. But never mind. And don't worry about giving yourself a warning :-) Best, Adam On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Hi Sala, >> >> Just to be clear, I haven't alluded to anything; I hope I've been >> clear and direct when saying the February statement was a mess. Which >> it was (is :-) >> >> ) >> > That mess that you referred to was the consolidation of the statements > expressed by members of the IGC. Whilst it is all very well and easy to > whinge post the process, it is even far better to participate during the > process of preparing the statement. > >> >> Agree about the need to discuss the new statement. Great to have this >> mailing list for that purpose, it has worked very well for many years. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> wrote: >> > Firstly, Adam, I will address you regarding your comment on what you >> > perceive to be contradictory during the IGF Consultations. I am only >> > responding to it because this is not the first time you have alluded to >> > this >> > on this mailing list. For the record, there were extensive and diverse >> > views >> > expressed whilst gathering feedback from within the IGC and that was >> > reflected within the submissions, nothing new given that there are many >> > diverse views within the IGC. >> > >> > As for the discussions on the draft statement, it is our duty to tease >> > out >> > the discussions on the matter, particularly where dissent has been >> > expressed. This is why we have posted the draft statement on the >> > statement >> > workspace to allow for people to comment on each pararaph and where it >> > can >> > be easily pulled up from records of work going into drafting statements. >> > >> > Sala >> > (co-coordinator) >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >> >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying >> >> IGC >> >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in >> >> HTML5 >> >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I >> >> know >> >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> >> to&fro >> >> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> >> something >> >> simple. >> >> >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> >> and >> >> generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >> >> see >> >> the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> >> charter >> >> rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not >> >> simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Deirdre. >> >>> >> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >> >>> so >> >>> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> >>> enables >> >>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, >> >>> which is >> >>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> >>> basically DRM). >> >>> >> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> >>> basically >> >>> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >> >>> "supporting >> >>> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> >>> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >> >>> through >> >>> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >> >>> use of >> >>> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >>> >> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, >> >>> IGC >> >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Catherine >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Catherine Roy >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>> (EFF) >> >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this >> >>> morning. >> >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >> >>> recent >> >>> EFF statement. >> >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >> >>> Charter", >> >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> >>> scope >> >>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> >>> determination >> >>> of end-user usage of content." >> >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >> >>> objection is >> >>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> >>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to >> >>> this >> >>> reference in 2 - >> >>> >> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> >>> specification: >> >>> >> >>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> >>> cases >> >>> such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> >>> >> >>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> >>> supporting playback of protected content" >> >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >>> >> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to >> >>> the >> >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >> >>> was >> >>> what we were asked about in the first place? >> >>> Thank you >> >>> Deirdre >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Catherine, >> >>>> >> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >>>> >> >>>> Best, >> >>>> >> >>>> Adam >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to >> >>>> the >> >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable >> >>>> facts, I >> >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one >> >>>> of the >> >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on >> >>>> the W3C >> >>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >> >>>> margin >> >>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >> >>>> be on >> >>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> >>>> browsers >> >>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> >>>> shutting out >> >>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in >> >>>> this >> >>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it >> >>>> could >> >>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a >> >>>> wordsmith and >> >>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to >> >>>> see >> >>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and >> >>>> sovereignty >> >>>> over their euh, "equipment". >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Catherine >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Catherine Roy >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Sala, >> >>>> >> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >> >>>> site >> >>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >> >>>> Perhaps you >> >>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >> >>>> people >> >>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >>>> >> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >>>> >> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >>>> supports >> >>>> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >>>> (EFF) >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> >>>> has >> >>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> >>>> digital >> >>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >>>> >> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> >>>> speaks >> >>>> for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >>>> >> >>>> Adam >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >>>> >> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >> >>>> comments and suggest text. >> >>>> >> >>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>> Sala >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Dear All, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >> >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence >> >>>>> still in >> >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the >> >>>>> balance of >> >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like >> >>>>> the DRM >> >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". >> >>>>> This is >> >>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> >>>>> explored by >> >>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). >> >>>>> I have >> >>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >> >>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in >> >>>>> relation to >> >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> >>>>> Statement >> >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment >> >>>>> in the >> >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >> >>>>> effective >> >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my >> >>>>> apologies >> >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> >>>>> whilst >> >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The >> >>>>> key >> >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> >>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes >> >>>>> are of >> >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is >> >>>>> on the >> >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track >> >>>>> comments >> >>>>> on the revised statement. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >>>>> Foundation >> >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium >> >>>>> (W3C) >> >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people >> >>>>> across >> >>>>> the planet. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to >> >>>>> an >> >>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be >> >>>>> to shut >> >>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability >> >>>>> and >> >>>>> lock in legacy business models. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> >>>>> enable >> >>>>> OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >> >>>>> resources >> >>>>> related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >> >>>>> content. In >> >>>>> such regions, access to information is a challenge and with serious >> >>>>> resource >> >>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the resultant >> >>>>> ease of >> >>>>> collaboration/sharing information) that empowers communities. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >> >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the >> >>>>> EFF's >> >>>>> arguments in this regard. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >>>> Suva >> >>>> Fiji >> >>>> >> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>> 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: >> >>>> 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: >> >>>> 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 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Tel: +679 3544828 >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> > >> > > > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat Jun 8 13:18:14 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:18:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> Hi all, To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it has filed this FO. As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. Best regards, Catherine [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make > the proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that > had attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence > saying IGC supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks > DRM in HTML5 harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other > paragraphs discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF > statement. I know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the > point. After a lot of to&fro where we seemed not to be getting > anywhere, just tried to make something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for > example see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why >> we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy > > wrote: >> >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better >> than I so please correct me as needed but my understanding is >> that EFF's formal objection concerns an element of the HTML >> Working Group charter that enables the Working Group to propose >> the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification which >> effectively represents a technology that, in combination with >> Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with >> CDMs, which is a software component that permits access to >> encrypted resources (so basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the >> charter as "supporting playback of protected content", is out of >> scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is >> objecting to the fact that W3C, through its HTML Working Group, >> propose a specification that will enable the use of Digital >> Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal >> objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier >>> Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read the >>> documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support >>> the recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >>> Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a significant >>> broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to >>> include the remote determination of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text >>> contains a detailed discussion of that issue as justification >>> fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is >>> to this reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the >>> updated HTML specification: >>> >>> * additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to >>> support use cases such as live events or premium content; >>> for example, additions for: >>> o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >>> ) >>> o supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's >>> Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on >>> DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, >>> which was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is >>>> simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for >>>> the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it is lacking with >>>> regards to users' rights, which is also one of the key >>>> issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as >>>> someone on the W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, >>>> standards should be at the margin of debates, and if >>>> required to take part, should always, in the end, be on the >>>> side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real >>>> problem here with shutting out users who do not have the >>>> right software/hardware from content (in this case, much of >>>> the discussions revolve around premium content but it >>>> could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not >>>> proposing exact wording, I would like to see something more >>>> clear in the statement regarding users rights and >>>> sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a >>>>> separate site for such a small statement is a pain. In my >>>>> opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see the stats on the >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people bother to >>>>> visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>>> endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the >>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management >>>>> in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we >>>>> object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >>>>> in HTML5. >>>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >>>>> statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >>>>> Charter" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself >>>>> long and speaks for itself. See no need to add more than >>>>> above. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you >>>>>> can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>> Sala >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. >>>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I >>>>>> have revised the first version to the one below. I >>>>>> have highlighted the sentence still in contention and >>>>>> also note that there are mixed reactions to the >>>>>> balance of the protection of intellectual property >>>>>> rights through mediums like the DRM to protect >>>>>> innovation and challenges to threats of impeded >>>>>> "Access". This is a very interesting debate and one I >>>>>> believe should be thoroughly explored by the IGC >>>>>> where we can come to some common ground (if we are >>>>>> able to). I have not had the time to read Frank La >>>>>> Rue's new report but it would be interesting to see >>>>>> his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the >>>>>> IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points >>>>>> that deserve discussion. As we speak, the Statement >>>>>> will be hosted on the Statement Workspace on the IGC >>>>>> website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces >>>>>> are far more effective in neatly allowing people to >>>>>> comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the >>>>>> attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland >>>>>> suggested that whilst there are many battles, this is >>>>>> not one we should spend time on? The key issues for >>>>>> your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> >>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>> Management? >>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>> Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new >>>>>> wordings and phrases. I have tried to capture your >>>>>> views below. All the mistakes are of course mine. Let >>>>>> us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on >>>>>> the Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will >>>>>> allow us to track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s >>>>>> Objection_* >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>>>> objects to the inclusion of digital rights management >>>>>> (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and support the formal >>>>>> objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>>>> Foundation (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the >>>>>> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web >>>>>> innovation and block access to content for people >>>>>> across the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a >>>>>> serious threat to an open and free internet. The >>>>>> inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut out >>>>>> open source developers and competition, destroy >>>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source >>>>>> developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow >>>>>> for an open environment of sharing resources related >>>>>> to agricultural practices, education, health and >>>>>> diverse content. In such regions, access to >>>>>> information is a challenge and with serious resource >>>>>> constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and >>>>>> the resultant ease of collaboration/sharing >>>>>> information) that empowers communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong >>>>>> objection to the support for DRM technologies in >>>>>> HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's arguments in >>>>>> this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>> Suva >>>>>> Fiji >>>>>> >>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> 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: >>>> 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: >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:19:59 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:19:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: For a very long time, this has been going on. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" wrote: > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. > Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into > the 'mugshot' stage > > -C > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. >> >> The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to >> take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. >> And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. >> >> Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. >> So figured you all should be warned, >> in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. >> >> avri >> >> >> * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been >> elected. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:25:19 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:25:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, In-Reply-To: <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <09d901ce6415$9b7bdd80$d2739880$@gmail.com> <51B2DF8E.6040208@gmail.com> <8EFFCECA-10BB-4B3F-9C16-9EB2E9506BEA@ella.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 11:24, McTim wrote: > >> oh wait we are against that as well. > > > Why are we against moving things to privacy and data havens like Ireland. Because they allow the "Giants" to dodge taxes, as we have seen on list many times in the last few weeks. Iceland and others? I think it would be a great incentive for creating data havens. > > Is it because that would be a market type force - voting with our data - and we must not ever admit that even market forces are useful sometimes? perhaps that is part of it. > > BTW how many countries spy on the data that cross their geographical borders from outside their borders? How many data havens are there? And bravo to the countries trying to create them. +1 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:48:02 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 05:48:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <74AD893B-0B20-4B58-BFD3-1F6D271DF712@ella.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 12:52, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > What we will do is organise a poll on the matter. > > > when did polling, i.e. voting, become the way we made consensus calls? > > Given that no one seems to be bent on wanting to use the Statement workspace, it is increasingly difficult to monitor consensus on aspects of the Charter in a manner that is open for all to see. The statement workspace allows people to make comments on specific provisions. Given the diverse spectrum of views (hardliners, diplomats, yay sayers, nay sayers, I am right and you are wrong, ) what is wrong with getting a poll, not a vote to see how all the members feel quickly about certain aspects? The poll would help us see what the list generally feels so we can call consensus on the matter... from the CHARTER: > > > The IGC will work on the basis of consensus as much as is possible. When > complete consensus cannot be reached the coordinators will be jointly > empowered to call rough consensus. Rough consensus, for the purposes of the > IGC, is defined as the point at which an overwhelming majority of the IGC > appears to agree with a position with any dissenting minority view having > been well discussed and respected. Rough consensus can only be called after > a serious attempt has been made to accommodate minority points of view. > > When both coordinators agree that it is necessary to make a rough > consensus call, the coordinator will announce the text of the consensus > decision on the mailing list and allow for at least fourty eight (48) hours > of final discussion. As discussed under the role of the appeals team, a > rough consensus call can be appealed to the appeals team. > > I do not find the word Poll anywhere in the charter. > > avri > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 13:51:46 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 13:51:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. to this: We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 Deirdre On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi all, > > To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has > decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more > effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending > petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having > their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this > issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical > drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, > etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I > have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best > way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this > work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of > saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to > why it has filed this FO. > > As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a semblance > of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by releasing > a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the statement > itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we support the > objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to ensure > consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it because > DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue > is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this > aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the IGC > interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and had > hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this > particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > > Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under > enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action > counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a > recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to > reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML > this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it > is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > > [1] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > > > > On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > > I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I > know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something simple. > > I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > > And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example > see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group charter > rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are not > simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > > > On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi Deirdre. >> >> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I so >> please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> basically DRM). >> >> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to basically >> argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as "supporting >> playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working Group >> deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through >> its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the use of >> Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the recent >> EFF statement. >> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination of end-user usage of content." >> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection >> is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >> reference in 2 - >> >> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >> specification: >> >> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >> ) >> - supporting playback of protected content" >> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which was >> what we were asked about in the first place? >> Thank you >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sala, >>> >>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> (EFF) >>> >>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>> >>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> Sala >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>> >>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>> >>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>> >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>> >>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>> on the revised statement. >>>> >>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>> the planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to >>>> an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would >>>> be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>> >>>> >>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>> arguments in this regard. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> Suva >>> Fiji >>> >>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828> >>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >>> 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: >>> 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 >> >> >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Sat Jun 8 14:03:37 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:03:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Hi Deirdre, That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like : "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5." Best regards, Catherine -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion > of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > to this: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason > particularly we object to the inclusion of digital rights management > (DRM) in HTML5 > Deirdre > > > On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy > wrote: > > Hi all, > > To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, > EFF has decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the > W3C to be more effective by becoming a member and following the > W3C process. Sending petitions and writing indignated articles and > press releases, while having their place in the landscape, will go > only so far in terms of turning this issue around. Also, since > there are plenty of people arguing the technical drawbacks in the > several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, etc., and > that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I > have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, > the best way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to > argue that this work is out of scope for the working group. But > this remains an issue of saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF > formal objection is very clear as to why it has filed this FO. > > As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a > semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the > EFF's FO by releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem > here was with the statement itself. I believe it would be a good > idea to explain *why* we support the objection. I understand that > it needs to be short and sweet to ensure consensus among this > group. But simply saying that we support it because DRM "stifles > innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of this issue is > users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on this > aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood > the IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for > the group and had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding > our concerns on this particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps > I was mistaken. > > Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is > under enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and > every action counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed > by a W3C employee in a recent guardian article[1], the W3C > Advisory Committee will be trying to reach consensus on the > decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML this coming > Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it is > still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > > Best regards, > > > Catherine > > > [1] > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > > > > > On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to >> make the proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the >> paragraphs that had attracted the most disagreement. That left >> an opening sentence saying IGC supports the EFF statement. 2nd >> sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 harmful, trying to >> capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs discussed on >> the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot >> of to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried >> to make something simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a >> blathering and generally meaningless set of contradictions and >> compromise (for example see the IGC's February comment to the IGF >> open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working >>> group charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm >>> wondering why we are not simply supporting the EFF objection to >>> the Charter? >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it >>> better than I so please correct me as needed but my >>> understanding is that EFF's formal objection concerns an >>> element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables the >>> Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions >>> (EME) specification which effectively represents a >>> technology that, in combination with Content Decryption >>> Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote determination of end-user >>> usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is a >>> software component that permits access to encrypted >>> resources (so basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter >>> to basically argue that such work, which is formulated in >>> the charter as "supporting playback of protected content", >>> is out of scope for the Working Group deliverables. So in >>> effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, through its >>> HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable >>> the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal >>> objection, IGC is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier >>>> Foundation (EFF) statement because I had no time to read >>>> the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would >>>> support the recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG >>>> Draft Charter", indicating that the Charter "represents a >>>> significant broadening of scope for the HTML WG (and the >>>> W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination of >>>> end-user usage of content." >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text >>>> contains a detailed discussion of that issue as >>>> justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the >>>> objection is to this reference in 2 - >>>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the >>>> updated HTML specification: >>>> >>>> * additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to >>>> support use cases such as live events or premium >>>> content; for example, additions for: >>>> o facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source >>>> Extensions ) >>>> o supporting playback of protected content" >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's >>>> Objection to the Charter, or are we creating an IGC >>>> statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's >>>> Objection, which was what we were asked about in the first >>>> place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it >>>>> is simple, to the point and avoids ambiguous and >>>>> perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I feel it >>>>> is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is >>>>> also one of the key issues at the heart of this whole >>>>> matter. That is, as someone on the W3C restricted >>>>> media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at >>>>> the margin of debates, and if required to take part, >>>>> should always, in the end, be on the side of the user. >>>>> Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem >>>>> here with shutting out users who do not have the right >>>>> software/hardware from content (in this case, much of >>>>> the discussions revolve around premium content but it >>>>> could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, >>>>> while I am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for >>>>> not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users >>>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>>> >>>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off >>>>>> to a separate site for such a small statement is a >>>>>> pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you can see >>>>>> the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>>>>> many people bother to visit vs the very large number >>>>>> who read the list? >>>>>> >>>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) >>>>>> endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by >>>>>> the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>> management in HTML5 has the potential to stifle >>>>>> innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>>> >>>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in >>>>>> their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML >>>>>> WG Draft Charter" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is >>>>>> itself long and speaks for itself. See no need to >>>>>> add more than above. >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. >>>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is >>>>>>> live at: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where >>>>>>> you can add your comments and suggest text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>>>> Sala >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. >>>>>>> Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, >>>>>>> I have revised the first version to the one >>>>>>> below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed >>>>>>> reactions to the balance of the protection of >>>>>>> intellectual property rights through mediums >>>>>>> like the DRM to protect innovation and >>>>>>> challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe >>>>>>> should be thoroughly explored by the IGC where >>>>>>> we can come to some common ground (if we are >>>>>>> able to). I have not had the time to read Frank >>>>>>> La Rue's new report but it would be interesting >>>>>>> to see his report of what the world is saying in >>>>>>> relation to this conflict. I am of course >>>>>>> interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting >>>>>>> points that deserve discussion. As we speak, the >>>>>>> Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to >>>>>>> capture every comment in the attached document. >>>>>>> I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >>>>>>> effective in neatly allowing people to comment >>>>>>> on each sentence etc, so my apologies if the >>>>>>> attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland >>>>>>> suggested that whilst there are many battles, >>>>>>> this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>>> Management? >>>>>>> * What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights >>>>>>> Management in HTML 5? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and >>>>>>> new wordings and phrases. I have tried to >>>>>>> capture your views below. All the mistakes are >>>>>>> of course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As >>>>>>> soon as the Statement is on the Workspace, >>>>>>> Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to >>>>>>> track comments on the revised statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *_Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s >>>>>>> Objection_* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >>>>>>> (IGC) objects to the inclusion of digital rights >>>>>>> management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the >>>>>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and that >>>>>>> the draft proposal from the World Wide Web >>>>>>> Consortium (W3C) could stifle Web innovation and >>>>>>> block access to content for people across the >>>>>>> planet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is >>>>>>> a serious threat to an open and free internet. >>>>>>> The inherent danger of the proposal would be to >>>>>>> shut out open source developers and competition, >>>>>>> destroy interoperability and lock in legacy >>>>>>> business models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open >>>>>>> source developers to enable OR CREATE mechanisms >>>>>>> that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, >>>>>>> education, health and diverse content. In such >>>>>>> regions, access to information is a challenge >>>>>>> and with serious resource constraints, but it is >>>>>>> an open and free internet (and the resultant >>>>>>> ease of collaboration/sharing information) that >>>>>>> empowers communities. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our >>>>>>> strong objection to the support for DRM >>>>>>> technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with >>>>>>> the EFF's arguments in this regard. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>>>> Suva >>>>>>> Fiji >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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: >>>>> 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: >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" >>> Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > -- > Catherine Roy > http://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 14:21:20 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 14:21:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: The DNA is newish. avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:19, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > For a very long time, this has been going on. > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > +234 8027510179 > > On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" wrote: > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into the 'mugshot' stage > > -C > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. > > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. > > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. > So figured you all should be warned, > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. > > avri > > > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been elected. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 14:22:07 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 14:22:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. >> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation (EFF) >> >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5." >> > >> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: > Hi Deirdre, > > That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we > keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something > like : > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > inclusion of DRM in HTML5." > > > Best regards, > > Catherine > > -- > Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net > > > > On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > to this: > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly we > object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > Deirdre > > > On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has >> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more >> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having >> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this >> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical >> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, >> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I >> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best >> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this >> work is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of >> saying no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to >> why it has filed this FO. >> >> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by >> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the >> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we >> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to >> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it >> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of >> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on >> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the >> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and >> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >> >> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under >> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a >> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to >> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML >> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it >> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> Catherine >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I >> know 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> to&fro where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> something simple. >> >> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >>> enables the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which >>> is a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> basically DRM). >>> >>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable >>> the use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>> recent EFF statement. >>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >>> scope for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >>> determination of end-user usage of content." >>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >>> objection is NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a >>> detailed discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> reference in 2 - >>> >>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> specification: >>> >>> - additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support >>> use cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions >>> for: >>> - facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions >>> ) >>> - supporting playback of protected content" >>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> Thank you >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Catherine, >>>> >>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the >>>> W3C restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >>>> margin of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, >>>> be on the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >>>> browsers that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >>>> shutting out users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>>> content (in this case, much of the discussions revolve around premium >>>> content but it could extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I >>>> am not a wordsmith and therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, >>>> I would like to see something more clear in the statement regarding users >>>> rights and sovereignty over their euh, "equipment". >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Sala, >>>> >>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >>>> site for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps >>>> you can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >>>> people bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>> >>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> (EFF) >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>>> has the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >>>> digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" < >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg> >>>> >>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>> >>>> Adam >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>> >>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>> >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>> comments and suggest text. >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> Sala >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >>>> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This >>>>> is a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >>>>> explored by the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >>>>> to). I have not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >>>>> be interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>> >>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>> >>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>> >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>> - What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML >>>>> 5? >>>>> >>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>> >>>>> *Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection* >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>> the planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to >>>>> an open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would >>>>> be to shut out open source developers and competition, destroy >>>>> interoperability and lock in legacy business models. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>> communities. >>>>> >>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>> Suva >>>> Fiji >>>> >>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>> Tel: +679 3544828 <%2B679%203544828> >>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 <%2B679%20998%202851> >>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>>> 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: >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Catherine Royhttp://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sat Jun 8 14:36:09 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 03:36:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised sentence. Best, Adam On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > DRM in HTML5." >>> > >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> > > > > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like >> : >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> to this: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it >>> has filed this FO. >>> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >>> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >>> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >>> simple. >>> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >>> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >>>> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>>> basically DRM). >>>> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>>> recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>>> of end-user usage of content." >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>>> reference in 2 - >>>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>>> specification: >>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>>> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>>> comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>>> the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>>> communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 16:41:29 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:41:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were > in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest > we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised > sentence. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I > think??) to > > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth > trying > > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > > > >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>>Foundation (EFF) > >>> > >>> > > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > HTML5 > > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > rights > > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion > of > > DRM in HTML5." > >>> > > >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>> > > > > > > > > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> > >> Hi Deirdre, > >> > >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object > we > >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something > like > >> : > >> > >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > HTML5 > >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > rights > >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > inclusion of > >> DRM in HTML5." > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Catherine > >> > >> -- > >> Catherine Roy > >> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> > >> > >> > >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital > >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> to this: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason > particularly > >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has > >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be > more > >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending > >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while > having > >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning > this > >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the > technical > >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted > media, > >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to > which I > >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the > best > >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that > this work > >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of > saying > >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to > why it > >>> has filed this FO. > >>> > >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a > >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's > FO by > >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with > the > >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we > >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and > sweet to > >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it > >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart > of > >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and > thurough on > >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood > the > >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group > and > >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this > >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > >>> > >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under > >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action > >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee > in a > >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying > to > >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in > HTML > >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I > think it > >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying > IGC > >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in > HTML5 > >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. > I know > >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > to&fro > >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > something > >>> simple. > >>> > >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >>> > >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for > example > >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>> > >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group > >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we > are > >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >>> > >>> > >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Deirdre. > >>>> > >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I > >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's > formal > >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > enables > >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote > >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, > which is > >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >>>> basically DRM). > >>>> > >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to > >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as > >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the > Working > >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that > W3C, > >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will > enable the > >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, > IGC > >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Best regards, > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Catherine > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Catherine Roy > >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > (EFF) > >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > morning. > >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > >>>> recent EFF statement. > >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft > Charter", > >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of > scope > >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > determination > >>>> of end-user usage of content." > >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > objection is > >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to > this > >>>> reference in 2 - > >>>> > >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML > >>>> specification: > >>>> > >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions > for: > >>>> > >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >>>> supporting playback of protected content" > >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >>>> > >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > the > >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? > >>>> Thank you > >>>> Deirdre > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Catherine, > >>>>> > >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >>>>> > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to > the > >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable > facts, I > >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one > of the > >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on > the W3C > >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > margin > >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, > be on > >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > browsers > >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > shutting out > >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in > this > >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it > could > >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a > wordsmith and > >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to > see > >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and > sovereignty > >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Catherine > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Catherine Roy > >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Sala, > >>>>> > >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate > site > >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > Perhaps you > >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > people > >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >>>>> > >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >>>>> > >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation > >>>>> (EFF) > >>>>> > >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > has > >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > digital > >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >>>>> > >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add > your > >>>>> comments and suggest text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Kind Regards, > >>>>> Sala > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear All, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence > still in > >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the > balance of > >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like > the DRM > >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded > "Access". This is > >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > explored by > >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > to). I have > >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in > relation to > >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the > Statement > >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment > in the > >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more > effective > >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my > apologies > >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that > whilst > >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? > The key > >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes > are of > >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is > on the > >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > comments > >>>>>> on the revised statement. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse > and > >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > Foundation > >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web > Consortium (W3C) > >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people > across > >>>>>> the planet. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to > an > >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would > be to shut > >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy > interoperability and > >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of > sharing > >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and > diverse > >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and > with > >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet > (and the > >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > >>>>>> communities. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the > EFF's > >>>>>> arguments in this regard. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >>>>> Suva > >>>>> Fiji > >>>>> > >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> 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: > >>>>> 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: > >>>>> 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 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Catherine Roy > >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > William > >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 17:29:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:29:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done In-Reply-To: References: <20130608203938.GA14261@vortex.com> Message-ID: <011501ce648f$533f2070$f9bd6150$@gmail.com> What comes through loud and clear on this and the associated comments, denials and disclaimers from all and sundry is that this is a global issue requiring a global response and particularly initiatives from a global civil society. However, successful our US colleagues may be in taming/controlling/bringing to some degree of accountability and transparency this particular beast this will do effectively nothing for those in the rest of the world who are equally net-enabled citizens, users of the Internet, customers/clients/users of US based Internet dominant services such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft and so on and for whom US law, the US constitution, and US accountability mechanisms (quite understandably) have no force. Even the development of alternative national counterparts won't do much since the opportunity and the temptation to undertake this kind of surveillance will always be there. We either give up on the idea of privacy altogether or we find a way of developing governance mechanisms that protect and provide accountability for all. M Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: [ NNSquad ] DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done Date: June 8, 2013 4:39:38 PM EDT To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM, but the damage is already done http://j.mp/10Z2q3A (DNI [PDF]) DNI releases Fact Sheet on PRISM. Of course the damage is already done, conspiracy nuts will never believe any of this, and what the government is admitting to doing is bad enough. A terrible, awful mess. I am disgusted. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130608165856:3A129324-D07E-11E2-850E-C0903DE100BE Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 17:38:49 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:38:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: This is the text we are suggesting. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" Deirdre > > On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the > recently proposed changes. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were >> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest >> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised >> sentence. >> >> Best, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: >> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I >> think??) to >> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth >> trying >> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's >> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. >> > >> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >>>Foundation (EFF) >> >>> >> >>> > >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> HTML5 >> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >> rights >> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> inclusion of >> > DRM in HTML5." >> >>> > >> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >>> >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object >> we >> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be >> something like >> >> : >> >> >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> HTML5 >> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >> rights >> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> inclusion of >> >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Catherine >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Catherine Roy >> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> digital >> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> to this: >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason >> particularly >> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi all, >> >>> >> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF >> has >> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be >> more >> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while >> having >> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning >> this >> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the >> technical >> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted >> media, >> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to >> which I >> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, >> the best >> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that >> this work >> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of >> saying >> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to >> why it >> >>> has filed this FO. >> >>> >> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's >> FO by >> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with >> the >> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* >> we >> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and >> sweet to >> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support >> it >> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart >> of >> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and >> thurough on >> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood >> the >> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the >> group and >> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >> >>> >> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is >> under >> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee >> in a >> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying >> to >> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility >> in HTML >> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I >> think it >> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >> >>> >> >>> Best regards, >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Catherine >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> [1] >> >>> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >>> >> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make >> the >> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence >> saying IGC >> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in >> HTML5 >> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. >> I know >> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of >> to&fro >> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> something >> >>> simple. >> >>> >> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >>> >> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for >> example >> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> Adam >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why >> we are >> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >> >>>> >> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than >> I >> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's >> formal >> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that >> enables >> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the >> remote >> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, >> which is >> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >> >>>> basically DRM). >> >>>> >> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the >> Working >> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that >> W3C, >> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will >> enable the >> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >>>> >> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, >> IGC >> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Catherine >> >>>> >> >>>> -- >> >>>> Catherine Roy >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> (EFF) >> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this >> morning. >> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >> >>>> recent EFF statement. >> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >> Charter", >> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of >> scope >> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> determination >> >>>> of end-user usage of content." >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >> objection is >> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to >> this >> >>>> reference in 2 - >> >>>> >> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated >> HTML >> >>>> specification: >> >>>> >> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions >> for: >> >>>> >> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >>>> >> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to >> the >> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >> >>>> Thank you >> >>>> Deirdre >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Adam >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to >> the >> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable >> facts, I >> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one >> of the >> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone >> on the W3C >> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the >> margin >> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the >> end, be on >> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> browsers >> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> shutting out >> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in >> this >> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but >> it could >> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a >> wordsmith and >> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like >> to see >> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and >> sovereignty >> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Catherine >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Catherine Roy >> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Hi Sala, >> >>>>> >> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >> site >> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >> Perhaps you >> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >> people >> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> Foundation >> >>>>> (EFF) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> has >> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion >> of digital >> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Adam >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add >> your >> >>>>> comments and suggest text. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Kind Regards, >> >>>>> Sala >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Dear All, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence >> still in >> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the >> balance of >> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums >> like the DRM >> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded >> "Access". This is >> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> explored by >> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >> to). I have >> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in >> relation to >> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to >> say. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> Statement >> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every >> comment in the >> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >> effective >> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my >> apologies >> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> whilst >> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? >> The key >> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >> mistakes are of >> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement >> is on the >> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track >> comments >> >>>>>> on the revised statement. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse >> and >> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> Foundation >> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web >> Consortium (W3C) >> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people >> across >> >>>>>> the planet. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat >> to an >> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would >> be to shut >> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy >> interoperability and >> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of >> sharing >> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and >> diverse >> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and >> with >> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet >> (and the >> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >> >>>>>> communities. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the >> EFF's >> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -- >> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >>>>> Suva >> >>>>> Fiji >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >>>>> 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: >> >>>>> 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: >> >>>>> 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 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Catherine Roy >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> William >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 18:25:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 10:25:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> This looks great, what do others think? Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > This is the text we are suggesting. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > Deirdre >> > > > > On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes. >> >> Kind Regards, >> Sala >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were >>> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest >>> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised >>> sentence. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams >>> wrote: >>> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to >>> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying >>> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's >>> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. >>> > >>> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>> >>>Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >>> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >>> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of >>> > DRM in HTML5." >>> >>> > >>> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi Deirdre, >>> >> >>> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we >>> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like >>> >> : >>> >> >>> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >>> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >>> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of >>> >> DRM in HTML5." >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best regards, >>> >> >>> >> Catherine >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Catherine Roy >>> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >> >>> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: >>> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >> to this: >>> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >>> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly >>> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >>> >> Deirdre >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has >>> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more >>> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >>> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having >>> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this >>> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical >>> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, >>> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I >>> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best >>> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work >>> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying >>> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it >>> >>> has filed this FO. >>> >>> >>> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >>> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by >>> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the >>> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we >>> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to >>> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it >>> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of >>> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on >>> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the >>> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and >>> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >>> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under >>> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >>> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a >>> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to >>> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML >>> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it >>> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >>> >>> >>> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >>> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >>> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >>> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >>> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >>> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >>> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >>> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >>> >>> simple. >>> >>> >>> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >>> >>> >>> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >>> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >>> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >>> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >>> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >>> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>> >>>> basically DRM). >>> >>>> >>> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >>> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best regards, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Catherine >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Catherine Roy >>> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>> >>>> recent EFF statement. >>> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>> >>>> of end-user usage of content." >>> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>> >>>> reference in 2 - >>> >>>> >>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>> >>>> specification: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >>> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>> >>>> Thank you >>> >>>> Deirdre >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Adam >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hi, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best regards, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Catherine >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Catherine Roy >>> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Hi Sala, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> >>>>> (EFF) >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Adam >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>> >>>>> comments and suggest text. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>> >>>>> Sala >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>>>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>> >>>>>> on the revised statement. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>> >>>>>> the planet. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>> >>>>>> communities. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> -- >>> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>> >>>>> Suva >>> >>>>> Fiji >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>>>> 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: >>> >>>>> 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: >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Catherine Roy >>> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> -- >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> P.O. Box 17862 >> Suva >> Fiji >> >> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> Tel: +679 3544828 >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> > > > > -- > “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 18:35:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 18:35:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > This looks great, what do others think? I'm fine with it as a compromise text. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 21:03:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 21:03:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ NNSquad ] Internet Shattered: Spies, Spooks, and Disgust In-Reply-To: <20130609000012.GB18169@vortex.com> References: <20130609000012.GB18169@vortex.com> Message-ID: FYI, emphasis added is mine: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Weinstein Date: Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:00 PM Subject: [ NNSquad ] Internet Shattered: Spies, Spooks, and Disgust To: nnsquad at nnsquad.org Internet Shattered: Spies, Spooks, and Disgust http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001042.html I've spent literally my entire adult life (and even before) working on Internet technologies and policies, one way or another, reaching back to early ARPANET days at UCLA -- a project rooted in Department of Defense funding, it's worthwhile to remember. Over that time, there have been many related high points and low points, events joyful or upsetting, but never -- not even close -- have I felt so completely, utterly disgusted with a situation associated with the Net as I am today. The apparently true facts we're learning about our own government's spying abuses against its own citizens are bad enough ( http://j.mp/13qeyu7 [Lauren's Blog] ). But we also are faced with stomaching the incredibly hypocritical and disingenuous pronouncements of intelligence agencies, administration officials, and Congressional leaders, as they point fingers back and forth about who knew what when, who approved which program, and why we citizens shouldn't be at all concerned. *To make matters worse, mixed in with misinformation and purposeful obfuscations, these actions have played directly into the hands of conspiracy theorists who are now working overtime to damage the very parties most in a position to help hold back unacceptable government prying into our affairs.* *It is in fact the major Web services providers like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others, who have become the most effective holding lines against government overreaching. Most smaller firms or individuals don't have the financial or legal resources to fight back against overly broad data demands and other government abuses.* Thanks to the damage done by distorted dribbling of information over the last few days about telephone metadata collection, PRISM, and now new stories and government generated gobbledygook explanations just today, people all over the world are confused and upset, wondering how deeply the USA is spying on the Internet and its users, the telephone system, and perhaps their supermarket loyalty cards. Even though the major Web firms categorically denied providing "back door" en masse data access to NSA, and accurately asserted that all data requests are vetted by those firms (and sometimes pushed back against in court), the last few days' worth of false charges have led to a torrent of people flooding comments and postings (not to mention my inbox). Their rants proclaim that the firms are lying, they're in bed with the government, this is proof you can't believe anything these companies say, and gigabytes of other assorted paranoid rot. I won't even address these ravings here. They generally demonstrate a profound lack of knowledge regarding both global-scale software engineering and the legal process. They're illogical, irrational, and are most appropriately filed in Area 51, right next to the outer space aliens' rumpus room. The government has been feeding this conspiratorial mindset against these firms for years. It has tried its best to scare the hell out Internet users, by attempting to falsely convince them that cookies are evil incarnate, open Wi-Fi access ports are somehow to be considered private, and that anonymous ad personalization systems will kill the family dog, if not your children. All the while, we see now that the real abuses have been orchestrated and planned from within the Beltway for many years, by officials totally convinced that they are so much smarter, so much more worldly, so much more entitled than the rest of us, that they've evolved the art of political and bureaucratic hypocrisy and insanely exaggerated secrecy to a level unimagined by the most skillful con men and swindlers in history. In this case, we're not just being swindled out of uncountable hundreds of billions of dollars being sucked into black budget "everything is called terrorism now!" ratholes, but we've been cheated by the politicians, spooks, and spies out of something even more important in the long run -- trust. No matter how ostensibly laudable their motives, these officials and minions with their vast and secretive funding, are steadfast in their belief that the American people cannot be trusted -- after all, we're just the little people compared with the giant brains of Congress and the intelligence agencies. Pat us on the head, tell us some scary stories (leave out the inconvenient details of course), and scoot us all back to our rooms. Now hear this! We're on to you. Not just here in the U.S. but other governments around the world who are playing the same games with their citizens. We don't need any wacky conspiracy theories -- the facts that are demonstrable are sufficient. We know that you desperately fear an Internet that you can't control, where every byte of data and every activity log isn't unencrypted and available at your immediate beck and call. We know you want to control what sites are available and what sites say, dictate the results search engines may show, and generally treat the Net as your own global intelligence fetish supreme. How about this? If you believe you can honestly make the case that you need to know everyone we call on the phone, have access on demand to virtually everything we do on our computers, and otherwise treat us with such suffocatingly, "loving" contempt -- get out here and convince us. No more hiding behind vast secrecy that serves your own desire for agency empire building far more than actual national security needs. No more smoke screens blown at Congress pressuring them to approve your schemes without details or debate on the theory that they're just too secret for Congress to really trouble itself about. And enough of trying to turn us against the very Internet firms that have the ethical and legal stamina not to let us be flattened like worms under your national security steamroller. While we're at it, oh spies, spooks, and affiliated politicos, one other piece of free advice. Go grab or download yourself a copy of the Constitution of the United States. It's widely available, at least for the moment. Pay particular attention to the Bill of Rights. Take it home. Discuss it with your spouse and children -- your children in particular probably already understand it far better than you do. Those documents were written by a bunch of rather ordinary men of extraordinary vision and resolve. They knew that even a well-meaning government can easily descend into abuse and tyranny, and they knew that protecting fundamental rights requires not treating everyone as a potential suspect, or everything they do or say as subject to access and analysis by the King's representatives and sycophants. They knew what freedom meant, while your actions now -- regardless of your motives -- are treating their efforts with vast contempt. We are proud to be Americans, but we are also enormously saddened and disgusted by your behavior. And that's the truth. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info - Data Wisdom Explorers League: http://www.dwel.org - Global Coalition for Transparent Internet Performance: http://www.gctip.org Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://vortex.com/g+lauren / Twitter: http://vortex.com/t-lauren Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com _______________________________________________ nnsquad mailing list http://lists.nnsquad.org/mailman/listinfo/nnsquad -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 8 21:29:05 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 21:29:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Another slide released. Interesting. NSA's Prism surveillance program: how it works and what it can do | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01ab01ce64b0$c2039740$460ac5c0$@gmail.com> From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:51 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Another slide released. Interesting. NSA's Prism surveillance program: how it works and what it can do | World news | guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-prism-server-collection-face book-google Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Sat Jun 8 21:54:29 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 01:54:29 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: June-08-13 3:26 PM To: Deirdre Williams Cc: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Catherine Roy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 This looks great, what do others think? Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: This is the text we are suggesting. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" Deirdre On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised sentence. Best, Adam On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > DRM in HTML5." >>> > >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> > > > > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy > wrote: >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like >> : >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> to this: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it >>> has filed this FO. >>> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >>> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >>> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >>> simple. >>> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >>> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >>>> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>>> basically DRM). >>>> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>>> recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>>> of end-user usage of content." >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>>> reference in 2 - >>>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>>> specification: >>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>>> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>>> comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>>> the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>>> communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Jun 8 22:29:48 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 02:29:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B222E05@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> +1 ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com] Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:54 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 +1 Kerry Brown From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Sent: June-08-13 3:26 PM To: Deirdre Williams Cc: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Catherine Roy Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 This looks great, what do others think? Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: This is the text we are suggesting. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" Deirdre On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes. Kind Regards, Sala On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake > wrote: Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised sentence. Best, Adam On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>Foundation (EFF) >>> >>> > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > DRM in HTML5." >>> > >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>> > > > > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy > wrote: >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like >> : >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Catherine >> >> -- >> Catherine Roy >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> to this: >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it >>> has filed this FO. >>> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >>> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> >>> Catherine >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >>> >>> >>> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >>> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something >>> simple. >>> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >>> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why we are >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >>> >>> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >>>> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than I >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's formal >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that enables >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the remote >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, which is >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so >>>> basically DRM). >>>> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the Working >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that W3C, >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will enable the >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >>>> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, IGC >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Catherine >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Catherine Roy >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this morning. >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >>>> recent EFF statement. >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter", >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of scope >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote determination >>>> of end-user usage of content." >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The objection is >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to this >>>> reference in 2 - >>>> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated HTML >>>> specification: >>>> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions for: >>>> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >>>> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to the >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >>>> Thank you >>>> Deirdre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >>>>> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to the >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable facts, I >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one of the >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone on the W3C >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the margin >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the end, be on >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular browsers >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with shutting out >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in this >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but it could >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a wordsmith and >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like to see >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and sovereignty >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Catherine >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Catherine Roy >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Sala, >>>>> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate site >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. Perhaps you >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many people >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >>>>> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >>>>> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>> (EFF) >>>>> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >>>>> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >>>>> >>>>> Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add your >>>>> comments and suggest text. >>>>> >>>>> Kind Regards, >>>>> Sala >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence still in >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the balance of >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums like the DRM >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded "Access". This is >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly explored by >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able to). I have >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in relation to >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the Statement >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every comment in the >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more effective >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my apologies >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >>>>>> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that whilst >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? The key >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >>>>>> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the mistakes are of >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement is on the >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track comments >>>>>> on the revised statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >>>>>> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse and >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people across >>>>>> the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat to an >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would be to shut >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy interoperability and >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of sharing >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and diverse >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and with >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet (and the >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers >>>>>> communities. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the EFF's >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >>>>> Suva >>>>> Fiji >>>>> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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: >>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Catherine Roy >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 8 22:54:07 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:24:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B222E05@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <32564CE0-4E05-4EBA-8A05-949FD68C8B88@gmail.com> <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B222E05@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <8A3B6596-9346-4A4D-94CB-2334F29D97C8@hserus.net> OK --srs (iPad) On 09-Jun-2013, at 7:59, Lee W McKnight wrote: > +1 > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Kerry Brown [kerry at kdbsystems.com] > Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 9:54 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > +1 > > Kerry Brown > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > Sent: June-08-13 3:26 PM > To: Deirdre Williams > Cc: Adam Peake; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Catherine Roy > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > > This looks great, what do others think? > > Sala > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:38 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > This is the text we are suggesting. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > Deirdre > > > > On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the recently proposed changes. > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were > in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest > we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised > sentence. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I think??) to > > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth trying > > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > > > >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >>>Foundation (EFF) > >>> > >>> > > > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > > DRM in HTML5." > >>> > > >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >>> > > > > > > > > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> > >> Hi Deirdre, > >> > >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object we > >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be something like > >> : > >> > >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > >> DRM in HTML5." > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Catherine > >> > >> -- > >> Catherine Roy > >> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> > >> > >> > >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> > >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of digital > >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> to this: > >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason particularly > >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > >> Deirdre > >> > >> > >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF has > >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be more > >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending > >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while having > >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning this > >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the technical > >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted media, > >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to which I > >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, the best > >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that this work > >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of saying > >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to why it > >>> has filed this FO. > >>> > >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a > >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's FO by > >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with the > >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* we > >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and sweet to > >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support it > >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart of > >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and thurough on > >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood the > >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the group and > >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this > >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > >>> > >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is under > >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action > >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee in a > >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying to > >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility in HTML > >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I think it > >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Catherine > >>> > >>> > >>> [1] > >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >>> > >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make the > >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence saying IGC > >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in HTML5 > >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. I know > >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of to&fro > >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make something > >>> simple. > >>> > >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >>> > >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for example > >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deird > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sat Jun 8 23:37:32 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 23:37:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: ok avri On 8 Jun 2013, at 17:38, Deirdre Williams wrote: > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jun 9 00:01:32 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 13:01:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B0C35A.7050605@catherine-roy.net> <0BB11D99-2C33-477D-B892-73F254344143@glocom.ac.jp> <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: Good. Thanks. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > ok > avri > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 17:38, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of DRM in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Sun Jun 9 00:52:42 2013 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 07:52:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> Message-ID: <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> I'm happy with that. Tapani On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > This is the text we are suggesting. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion of > DRM in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's > Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > Deirdre > > > > > > > On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the > > recently proposed changes. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were > >> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest > >> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised > >> sentence. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > >> wrote: > >> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I > >> think??) to > >> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth > >> trying > >> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > >> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > >> > > >> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> >>>Foundation (EFF) > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > >> HTML5 > >> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > >> rights > >> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > >> inclusion of > >> > DRM in HTML5." > >> >>> > > >> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Deirdre, > >> >> > >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not object > >> we > >> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be > >> something like > >> >> : > >> >> > >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > >> HTML5 > >> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > >> rights > >> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > >> inclusion of > >> >> DRM in HTML5." > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Catherine > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Catherine Roy > >> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >> > >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second sentence: > >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 has > >> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >> digital > >> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> >> to this: > >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason > >> particularly > >> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > >> >> Deirdre > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi all, > >> >>> > >> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF > >> has > >> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be > >> more > >> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. Sending > >> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while > >> having > >> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of turning > >> this > >> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the > >> technical > >> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted > >> media, > >> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to > >> which I > >> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, > >> the best > >> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that > >> this work > >> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of > >> saying > >> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to > >> why it > >> >>> has filed this FO. > >> >>> > >> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a > >> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the EFF's > >> FO by > >> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was with > >> the > >> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain *why* > >> we > >> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and > >> sweet to > >> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we support > >> it > >> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the heart > >> of > >> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and > >> thurough on > >> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have misunderstood > >> the > >> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the > >> group and > >> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on this > >> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > >> >>> > >> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is > >> under > >> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every action > >> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C employee > >> in a > >> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be trying > >> to > >> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility > >> in HTML > >> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I > >> think it > >> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > >> >>> > >> >>> Best regards, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Catherine > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> [1] > >> >>> > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> >>> > >> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make > >> the > >> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence > >> saying IGC > >> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in > >> HTML5 > >> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other paragraphs > >> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF statement. > >> I know > >> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot of > >> to&fro > >> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > >> something > >> >>> simple. > >> >>> > >> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> >>> > >> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a blathering > >> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for > >> example > >> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> >>> > >> >>> Best, > >> >>> > >> >>> Adam > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group > >> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why > >> we are > >> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi Deirdre. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better than > >> I > >> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's > >> formal > >> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter that > >> enables > >> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the > >> remote > >> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with CDMs, > >> which is > >> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources (so > >> >>>> basically DRM). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to > >> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter as > >> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for the > >> Working > >> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact that > >> W3C, > >> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will > >> enable the > >> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal objection, > >> IGC > >> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Best regards, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Catherine > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Catherine Roy > >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > >> (EFF) > >> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > >> morning. > >> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > >> >>>> recent EFF statement. > >> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft > >> Charter", > >> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening of > >> scope > >> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > >> determination > >> >>>> of end-user usage of content." > >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > >> objection is > >> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to > >> this > >> >>>> reference in 2 - > >> >>>> > >> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated > >> HTML > >> >>>> specification: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support use > >> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, additions > >> for: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" > >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection to > >> the > >> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, which > >> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? > >> >>>> Thank you > >> >>>> Deirdre > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi Catherine, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Best, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Adam > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, to > >> the > >> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) unprovable > >> facts, I > >> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also one > >> of the > >> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone > >> on the W3C > >> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at the > >> margin > >> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the > >> end, be on > >> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > >> browsers > >> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > >> shutting out > >> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content (in > >> this > >> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but > >> it could > >> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a > >> wordsmith and > >> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like > >> to see > >> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and > >> sovereignty > >> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Best regards, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Catherine > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> Catherine Roy > >> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi Sala, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate > >> site > >> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > >> Perhaps you > >> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > >> people > >> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> Foundation > >> >>>>> (EFF) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> has > >> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion > >> of digital > >> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > >> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > >> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Adam > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add > >> your > >> >>>>> comments and suggest text. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Kind Regards, > >> >>>>> Sala > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Dear All, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised the > >> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence > >> still in > >> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the > >> balance of > >> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums > >> like the DRM > >> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded > >> "Access". This is > >> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > >> explored by > >> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > >> to). I have > >> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would be > >> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in > >> relation to > >> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to > >> say. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the > >> Statement > >> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every > >> comment in the > >> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more > >> effective > >> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my > >> apologies > >> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that > >> whilst > >> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? > >> The key > >> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML 5? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the > >> mistakes are of > >> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement > >> is on the > >> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to track > >> comments > >> >>>>>> on the revised statement. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to the > >> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We endorse > >> and > >> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> Foundation > >> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web > >> Consortium (W3C) > >> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for people > >> across > >> >>>>>> the planet. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat > >> to an > >> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal would > >> be to shut > >> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy > >> interoperability and > >> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > >> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment of > >> sharing > >> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health and > >> diverse > >> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge and > >> with > >> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free internet > >> (and the > >> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that empowers > >> >>>>>> communities. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to the > >> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with the > >> EFF's > >> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >> >>>>> Suva > >> >>>>> Fiji > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>>>> 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: > >> >>>>> 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: > >> >>>>> 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 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Catherine Roy > >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Jun 9 01:06:31 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:06:31 +1000 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> works for me -----Original Message----- From: Tapani Tarvainen Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 I'm happy with that. Tapani On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > This is the text we are suggesting. > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports > the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion > of > DRM in HTML5. > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's > Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > Deirdre > > > > > > > On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the > > recently proposed changes. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were > >> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest > >> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised > >> sentence. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams > >> wrote: > >> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I > >> think??) to > >> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth > >> trying > >> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's > >> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. > >> > > >> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> >>>Foundation (EFF) > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > >> HTML5 > >> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > >> rights > >> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > >> inclusion of > >> > DRM in HTML5." > >> >>> > > >> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their > >> >>> > statement > >> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Hi Deirdre, > >> >> > >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not > >> >> object > >> we > >> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be > >> something like > >> >> : > >> >> > >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > >> HTML5 > >> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the > >> rights > >> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the > >> inclusion of > >> >> DRM in HTML5." > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Catherine > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> Catherine Roy > >> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >> > >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second > >> >> sentence: > >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> >> has > >> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of > >> digital > >> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> >> to this: > >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 > >> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason > >> particularly > >> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > >> >> HTML5 > >> >> Deirdre > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Hi all, > >> >>> > >> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF > >> has > >> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be > >> more > >> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. > >> >>> Sending > >> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while > >> having > >> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of > >> >>> turning > >> this > >> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the > >> technical > >> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted > >> media, > >> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to > >> which I > >> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, > >> the best > >> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that > >> this work > >> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of > >> saying > >> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to > >> why it > >> >>> has filed this FO. > >> >>> > >> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a > >> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the > >> >>> EFF's > >> FO by > >> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was > >> >>> with > >> the > >> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain > >> >>> *why* > >> we > >> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and > >> sweet to > >> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we > >> >>> support > >> it > >> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the > >> >>> heart > >> of > >> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and > >> thurough on > >> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have > >> >>> misunderstood > >> the > >> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the > >> group and > >> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on > >> >>> this > >> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. > >> >>> > >> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is > >> under > >> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every > >> >>> action > >> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C > >> >>> employee > >> in a > >> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be > >> >>> trying > >> to > >> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility > >> in HTML > >> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I > >> think it > >> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. > >> >>> > >> >>> Best regards, > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> Catherine > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> [1] > >> >>> > >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. > >> >>> > >> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make > >> the > >> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had > >> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence > >> saying IGC > >> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in > >> HTML5 > >> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other > >> >>> paragraphs > >> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF > >> >>> statement. > >> I know > >> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot > >> >>> of > >> to&fro > >> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make > >> something > >> >>> simple. > >> >>> > >> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. > >> >>> > >> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a > >> >>> blathering > >> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for > >> example > >> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). > >> >>> > >> >>> Best, > >> >>> > >> >>> Adam > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. > >> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group > >> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why > >> we are > >> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Hi Deirdre. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better > >> >>>> than > >> I > >> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's > >> formal > >> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter > >> >>>> that > >> enables > >> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) > >> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in > >> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the > >> remote > >> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with > >> >>>> CDMs, > >> which is > >> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources > >> >>>> (so > >> >>>> basically DRM). > >> >>>> > >> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to > >> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the charter > >> >>>> as > >> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for > >> >>>> the > >> Working > >> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact > >> >>>> that > >> W3C, > >> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will > >> enable the > >> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal > >> >>>> objection, > >> IGC > >> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Best regards, > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Catherine > >> >>>> > >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> Catherine Roy > >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? > >> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation > >> (EFF) > >> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this > >> morning. > >> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the > >> >>>> recent EFF statement. > >> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft > >> Charter", > >> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening > >> >>>> of > >> scope > >> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote > >> determination > >> >>>> of end-user usage of content." > >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The > >> objection is > >> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed > >> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. > >> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to > >> this > >> >>>> reference in 2 - > >> >>>> > >> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated > >> HTML > >> >>>> specification: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support > >> >>>> use > >> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, > >> >>>> additions > >> for: > >> >>>> > >> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) > >> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" > >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ > >> >>>> > >> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection > >> >>>> to > >> the > >> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? > >> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, > >> >>>> which > >> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? > >> >>>> Thank you > >> >>>> Deirdre > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi Catherine, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Best, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Adam > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, > >> >>>>> to > >> the > >> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) > >> >>>>> unprovable > >> facts, I > >> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also > >> >>>>> one > >> of the > >> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone > >> on the W3C > >> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at > >> >>>>> the > >> margin > >> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the > >> end, be on > >> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular > >> browsers > >> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with > >> shutting out > >> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content > >> >>>>> (in > >> this > >> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but > >> it could > >> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a > >> wordsmith and > >> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like > >> to see > >> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and > >> sovereignty > >> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Best regards, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Catherine > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> Catherine Roy > >> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Hi Sala, > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate > >> site > >> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. > >> Perhaps you > >> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many > >> people > >> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > >> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> Foundation > >> >>>>> (EFF) > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in > >> >>>>> HTML5 > >> has > >> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion > >> of digital > >> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their > >> >>>>> statement > >> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and > >> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Adam > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can add > >> your > >> >>>>> comments and suggest text. > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Kind Regards, > >> >>>>> Sala > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Dear All, > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence > >> still in > >> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the > >> balance of > >> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums > >> like the DRM > >> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded > >> "Access". This is > >> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly > >> explored by > >> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able > >> to). I have > >> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would > >> >>>>>> be > >> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in > >> relation to > >> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to > >> say. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve > >> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the > >> Statement > >> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every > >> comment in the > >> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more > >> effective > >> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my > >> apologies > >> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that > >> whilst > >> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? > >> The key > >> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? > >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML > >> >>>>>> 5? > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and > >> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the > >> mistakes are of > >> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement > >> is on the > >> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to > >> >>>>>> track > >> comments > >> >>>>>> on the revised statement. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We > >> >>>>>> endorse > >> and > >> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > >> Foundation > >> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web > >> Consortium (W3C) > >> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for > >> >>>>>> people > >> across > >> >>>>>> the planet. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat > >> to an > >> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal > >> >>>>>> would > >> be to shut > >> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy > >> interoperability and > >> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to > >> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment > >> >>>>>> of > >> sharing > >> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health > >> >>>>>> and > >> diverse > >> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge > >> >>>>>> and > >> with > >> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free > >> >>>>>> internet > >> (and the > >> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that > >> >>>>>> empowers > >> >>>>>> communities. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to > >> >>>>>> the > >> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with > >> >>>>>> the > >> EFF's > >> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> -- > >> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > >> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 > >> >>>>> Suva > >> >>>>> Fiji > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT > >> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > >> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 > >> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > >> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> > >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >> >>>>> 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: > >> >>>>> 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: > >> >>>>> 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 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -- > >> >>> Catherine Roy > >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir > >> William > >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Tel: +679 3544828 > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > > > > > > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 9 01:12:15 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 10:42:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <1193463A-EC54-4842-B324-9182EC2B3BD2@hserus.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <1193463A-EC54-4842-B324-9182EC2B3BD2@hserus.net> Message-ID: <4FCE0A18-4FE9-41DA-84F9-1B3CB1CEFEAF@hserus.net> By the way .. http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/ That, and the conspiracy theories floating around do gel so very well together. --srs (iPad) On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:58, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > And standing armies are a feature of most if not all democracies, around the world, for some centuries since the mid 1700s. Even one where the government is as decentralized as, say, Switzerland. > > We don't quite have armed soldiers doing any of this snooping, either. So how or why does this analogy come into the picture? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 08-Jun-2013, at 19:49, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people. >> Speech, Constitutional Convention (1787-06-29), from Max Farrand's Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, vol. I [1] (1911), p. 465 >> On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >>> Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? >>> >>> http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ >>> >>> We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. >>> >>> Kerry Brown >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 04:10:45 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:10:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data Message-ID: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is another question of course). What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out. Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes might provide to their citizens. Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more or less non-operational. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" to these revelations. M >From the Washington Post, just published: "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's staff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-i nternet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234 -d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 9 04:19:19 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:49:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data In-Reply-To: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> References: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f280489a4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> And as a counterpoint I would appreciate your comments on this http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/ --srs (htc one x) On 9 June 2013 1:40:45 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done > within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of > course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is > being done is another question of course). > What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are > to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the > global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the > central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities > including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based > technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the > Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out. > > Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to > have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclassed > institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes > might provide to their citizens. > Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the > dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws > outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society > and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that > no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more > or less non-operational. > > BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to > McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" > to these revelations. > > M > > From the Washington Post, just published: > > "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although > inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts > at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government > employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and receive results > from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's > staff." > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-i > nternet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234 > -d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jun 9 04:19:54 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 17:19:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Asia Pacific IGF (Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [igf_members] APrIGF Seoul 2013 - Workshop Deadline Extended to Jun 14 & Registration Now Opens) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Drake Date: Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 5:16 PM Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [igf_members] APrIGF Seoul 2013 - Workshop Deadline Extended to Jun 14 & Registration Now Opens To: "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org" FYI from an IGF colleague... Begin forwarded message: *From: *Paul Wilson *Subject: **[igf_members] Fwd: APrIGF Seoul 2013 - Workshop Deadline Extended to Jun 14 & Registration Now Opens* *Date: *June 9, 2013 4:01:02 AM GMT+02:00 *To: *"igf_members at intgovforum.org MAG" FYI, 5 days left for submissions to APrIGF. I'd appreciate help of MAG members in promoting this to colleagues and communities with interest in AP IGF issues. (mind, this is not a desperate call for submissions - because there are quite a few - but a last call for anyone who may have missed it) Thanks, Paul Begin forwarded message: *From: *Yannis Li *Subject: **[DotAsia_Members] APrIGF Seoul 2013 - Workshop Deadline Extended to Jun 14 & Registration Now Opens* *Date: *4 June 2013 7:45:12 PM AEST *To: * * * *Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2013, Seoul, South Korea* *4-6 September 2013* *2013.aprigf.asia* * * Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) has been held annually since 2010. The Forum serves as a platform for aggregating IGF related discussions and collaborations at the regional level, and ultimately advances the development of Internet governance in the Asia Pacific. APrIGF 2013 will be hosted by Korea Internet Governance Alliance (KIGA) and supported by the local secretariat Korea Internet Security Agency (KISA) and APrIGF secretariat DotAsia Organisation respectively. The APrIGF Program Committee calls for your attention on the below updates: *• Call for Workshop Proposals Submission Deadline extended to Jun 14 (Fri)* Please seize the last 2 weeks to submit your proposals. Requirement of the proposals can be found at http://2013.rigf.asia/2013/05/23/call-for-workshops-themes/ * * *• Registration Now Opens* The participant registration is now open. Join us and meet all other stakeholders and industry leaders from Asia Pacific to discuss the Internet governance of our region. Check out the website for more information about travel and accommodation. Register now and plan your travel ahead! * * *• Request for Proposal on Local Host of APrIGF 2014* We now welcome any interested organizations to submit their proposals on hosting APrIGF in 2014 to msg at aprigf.asia by *15 Aug 2013 (Thu). *Guideline of the RFP can be found on the main website of APrIGF . * If you are interested to follow any news and updates about APrIGF and discuss relevant issues, you may subscribe to the mailing list by sending a subscription request to discuss at aprigf.asia. We welcome any Internet-related organisation that wishes to become a supporting organisation or sponsor. Please contact sec at aprigf.asia for more information. * *Secretariat of APrIGF* ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Address: 12F, Daily House, 35-37 Haiphong Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Hong Kong Tel: +852 5802 2500 ︳Fax: +852 5802 2502 ︳http://www.aprigf.asia _______________________________________________ Rigf_program mailing list Rigf_program at aprigf.asia https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_program _______________________________________________ Rigf_secretariat mailing list Rigf_secretariat at ap.rigf.asia https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/rigf_secretariat _______________________________________________ Members mailing list Members at dotasia.org https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APrIGF Seoul.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 388512 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 04:46:43 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 04:46:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data In-Reply-To: <13f280489a4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> <13f280489a4.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <029e01ce64ed$e2ab7fc0$a8027f40$@gmail.com> A good discussion perhaps for a journalism school (how to characterize levels of complicity) but nothing written there changes anything material about the revelations. M From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:19 AM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data And as a counterpoint I would appreciate your comments on this http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-jo urnalism-7000016570/ --srs (htc one x) On 9 June 2013 1:40:45 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is another question of course). What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out. Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes might provide to their citizens. Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more or less non-operational. BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" to these revelations. M >From the Washington Post, just published: "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's staff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-i nternet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234 -d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 05:05:08 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:35:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: On a lighter note there's mention of the existence of a 'criminal gene' in today's paper. Maybe they'll find it... -C On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > The DNA is newish. > > avri > > On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:19, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: > > > For a very long time, this has been going on. > > > > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA > > > > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." > > > > +234 8027510179 > > > > On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" > wrote: > > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. > Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into > the 'mugshot' stage > > > > -C > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. > > > > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to > take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. > > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. > > > > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. > > So figured you all should be warned, > > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. > > > > avri > > > > > > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having been > elected. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > > 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: > > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 05:07:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 12:07:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) "You Should Use Both" - How America's Internet Companies Are Handing Over Your Data To Uncle Sam Message-ID: <51B445E4.70506@gmail.com> "You Should Use Both" - How America's Internet Companies Are Handing Over Your Data To Uncle Sam Tyler Durden's picture Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/08/2013 13:58 -0400 In the aftermath of the PRISM spying scandal, the first and logical response was an expected one: *lie*. The president did it , and so did the various companies implicated in the biggest US surveillance scandal ever exposed. To wit: * Zuckerberg: "*Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers*." * Google CEO Larry Page: "*We have not joined any program that would give the US government -- or any other government -- direct access to our servers."* * Yahoo: "*We do not provide the government with direct access to our servers, systems, or network*." One small problem: /*they are all lying.*/ The NYT explains just how the explicit handover of private customer data from Corporate Server X to NSA Server Y takes place. The companies that negotiated with the government include Google, which owns YouTube; Microsoft, which owns Hotmail and Skype; Yahoo; Facebook; AOL; Apple; and Paltalk, according to one of the people briefed on the discussions. *The companies were legally required to share the data under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. People briefed on the discussions spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited by law from discussing the content of FISA requests or even acknowledging their existence.* *In at least two cases, at Google and Facebook, one of the plans discussed was to build separate, secure portals, like a digital version of the secure physical rooms that have long existed for classified information, in some instances on company servers*. Through these online rooms, the government would request data, companies would deposit it and the government would retrieve it, people briefed on the discussions said. ... Each of the nine companies said it had no knowledge of a government program providing officials with access to its servers, and drew a bright line between giving the government wholesale access to its servers to collect user data and giving them specific data in response to individual court orders. Each said it did not provide the government with full, indiscriminate access to its servers. The companies said they do, however, comply with individual court orders, including under FISA. The negotiations, and the technical systems for sharing data with the government, fit in that category because they involve access to data under individual FISA requests. And in some cases, the data is transmitted to the government electronically, using a company's servers. "*The U.S. government does not have direct access or a 'back door' to the information stored in our data centers*," Google's chief executive, Larry Page, and its chief legal officer, David Drummond, said in a statement on Friday. "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law." Statements from Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Apple, AOL and Paltalk made the same distinction. But instead of adding a back door to their servers, *the companies were essentially asked to erect a locked mailbox and give the government the key, *people briefed on the negotiations said. *Facebook, for instance, built such a system for requesting and sharing the information, they said.* The data shared in these ways, the people said, is shared after company lawyers have reviewed the FISA request according to company practice. It is not sent automatically or in bulk, and the government does not have full access to company servers. Instead, they said, it is a more secure and efficient way to hand over the data. Tech companies might have also denied knowledge of the full scope of cooperation with national security officials because *employees whose job it is to comply with FISA requests are not allowed to discuss the details even with others at the company, *and in some cases have national security clearance, according to both a former senior government official and a lawyer representing a technology company. And there you have it: backdoors, locked (and not so locked mailboxes), and internal corporate firewalls in which some employees know everything that is going on and are used as a Chinese Wall scapegoat by everyone else who was shocked there is snooping going on here, SHOCKED. Oh, and if that was not enough, here it is straight from the horse's mouth. Via the Guardian : The slide, below, details different methods of data collection under the FISA Amendment Act of 2008 (which was renewed in December 2012). It clearly distinguishes Prism, which involves data collection from servers, as distinct from four different programs involving data collection from "fiber cables and infrastructure as data flows past". Essentially, the slide suggests that the NSA also collects some information under FAA702 from cable intercepts, but that process is distinct from Prism. Analysts are encouraged to use both techniques of data gathering. *"You Should Use Both**."* You know: just in case only one is insufficient to make a mocker of all personal rights and civil liberties. Average: 5 Your rating: None Average: 5 (12 votes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PRISM use both.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 51920 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NSA dark knight.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 67036 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 05:20:56 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 12:20:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data In-Reply-To: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> References: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B448F8.7040404@gmail.com> Michael Since McTim had asked me once how I would go about handling the 70 to 80% fo the "single rooters" (an appelation that I will continue to use because the historical trajectory that brings us to some of your questions), I thought I would discern some of the tactics that have led directly or indirectly to this fork in the road (defending the indefensible like 'single rooters' seems a lot easier than this spat): 1. Denial (of point made or its relevance). 2. Demands for evidence. 3. Obfuscation (sometimes even definitional), nuance (I don't fit in that box, or don't put me in there because) or calling contradictions. 4. Collective attacks. 5. Appeals to higher authority. 6. Common cause made with conspiracy nuts (of course it is lost on some that truth can be stranger than fiction). But we should not forget adaptation, and it is great if people change their minds when the facts change. But the test of that pudding is in the tasting. Can you believe that these kinds of issues were suggested to be labelled as tangential? Thanks for these excellent posts, comments and queries. On 2013/06/09 11:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are > done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law > which is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens > (how well that is being done is another question of course). > > What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world > are to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given > the global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and > the central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet > activities including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the > US based technical community in all aspects of the technical operation > of the Internet the implications of this position need hardly be > spelled out. > > Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world > appear to have no rights and little protections except those that > totally outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, > privacy protection regimes might provide to their citizens. > > Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. > the dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any > laws outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their > civil society and technical community collaborators have been so > active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime could be created, > such protections seem to be more or less non-operational. > > BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier > to McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical > community" to these revelations. > > M > > From the Washington Post, just published: > > "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although > inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of > analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, > government employees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system > and receive results from an Internet company without further > interaction with the company’s staff." > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:12:57 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:12:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B45529.70301@gmail.com> Yes we can change this. On this list these matters are tangential for some of the active players here. If there is a denial of the problem, or obstructions in even seeking to discuss it then democracy or not, it does not matter. Seems like much of the mainstream press and civil society is bought and paid for (by association or through 'ideology) which is why in even in finance bankers get away with stuff while homeowners are foreclosed upon on fraudulent documents. That too can be changed. Everything can be changed. Sometimes to keep things the same everything else needs to be changed. Funny thing about this issue though is that there is bipartisan support (Foreign Intelligence Committee). There is consensus on this issue. And that is democratic too. How does it feel to be treated like Afghans, Iraqi's, Latino's, Africans and Asians? Good for the goose, good for the gander... as we used to say in our interminable arguments before... some counted on foreigners being treated differently, and so it was ok because 'they hate our freedoms'. Madison sought to dispel this myth. Do you think one can work against the ruthlessness of the singlerooters and not be idealist? And, Idealism must be tempered by realism. The realism not to be hounded, for instance, on this list, for holding third worldist views. And when a change is made, then protests begin. And this is a non-binding forum :) In short, you all in the N. America's are going to get your butts kicked (it has been happening but mandatory optimism seems to get in the way of feeling it, as EFF has been pointing out for a long time, and now the ACLU) and perhaps it is time for a change... let's see. As I said, I will not be holding my breadth, but I suspect that lots of people will be Swartzed. This is just an outsider view, so may be coloured by all sorts of prejudices and unfocussed because of distance, but it seems (at rough approximation) that progressive forces are poorly organised on this issue (in collecting power terms) and in any event are characterised by sterling performers (like EFF) and others with coalitions that seem to have too many hypocrites. Pity, so much of this is emancipatory. Riaz On 2013/06/08 06:50 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > I’m still not sure if you agree or disagree with my contention that in > a modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour > by those in power. I understand that historically things were > different. I understand that some people don’t think that we have a > chance to change this. I understand that many people have written or > spoken about this. What I don’t understand so far is if you agree or > disagree that in a modern democracy this can be changed. I’m not > saying it would be easy or even that the odds are good. All I’m saying > is the chance exists and I for one am working to making it happen. I > don’t believe that defeatism is useful in reality or as an argument > against working for change. > > Kerry Brown > > *From:*Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > *Sent:* June-08-13 8:06 AM > *To:* Kerry Brown > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > I believe in the reality of choice. > > To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: > > 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. > Foreign entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of > people it strengthened in power. > > 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of > humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by > some third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to > determine the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's > took liberte, egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all > irrespective of property ownership). > > 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. > Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) > "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced > countries who live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic > but also paranoic and hence authoritarian-like. > > 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive > of democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be > free men, including free to keep slaves. > > Riaz > > On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with > my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to > change this type of behaviour by those in power? > > Kerry Brown > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz > K Tayob > *Sent:* June-08-13 7:19 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news > | guardian.co.uk > > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly > given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, > has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. > *A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not > long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against > foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at > home.* Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, > whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the > armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the > people. > > * Speech, Constitutional Convention > > (1787-06-29 > ), > from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of > 1787,/ vol. I [1] > > (1911), p. 465 > > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other governments are doing this? > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:20:38 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:20:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) US spy agency seeks criminal probe into leaks Message-ID: <51B456F6.6050905@gmail.com> * US spy agency seeks criminal probe into leaks* Director of National Intelligence James Clapper accuses media of being "reckless" in revealing monitoring of internet. Last Modified: 09 Jun 2013 03:32 The Guardian revealed that National Security Agency collected telephone records of millions of Americans [EPA] A US intelligence agency has requested a criminal probe into the leak of highly classified information about secret surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency, a spokesman for the intelligence chief's office said. Confirmation that the NSA filed a "crimes report" came a few hours after the nation's spy chief, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, launched an aggressive defense of a secret government data collection program on Saturday. Clapper blasted what he called "reckless disclosures" of a highly classified spy agency project code-named PRISM. It was not known how broad a leaks investigation was requested by the super-secret NSA, but Shawn Turner, a spokesman for Clapper's office, said a "crimes report has been filed." Over the last week we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe, James Clapper, Director of US National Intelligence The report goes to the Justice Department, which has established procedures for determining whether an investigation is warranted. Prosecutors do not accept all requests, but they have brought a series of high-profile leak investigations under President Barack Obama. US officials said the NSA leaks were so astonishing they expected the Justice Department to take the case. A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. In a statement earlier on Saturday, Clapper acknowledged PRISM's existence by name for the first time and said it had been mischaracterized by the media. The project was legal, not aimed at US citizens and had thwarted threats against the country, he said. "Over the last week we have seen reckless disclosures of intelligence community measures used to keep Americans safe," Clapper said in a statement. He said the surveillance activities reported in the Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspaper were lawful and conducted under authorities approved by Congress. "Significant misimpressions" have resulted from recent articles, he said. Investigating leak President Barack Obama's national security spokesman Ben Rhodes said the administration was investigating whether the leak had put Americans or US interests in danger, implying that legal action may be considered. "What we're focused on doing right now ... is frankly doing an assessment of the damage that's been done to the national security of the United States by the revelations of this information," he said. The service providers - internet titans like Google, Yahoo! and Facebook - also hit back, insisting they had not given direct access to customer data. "Press reports that suggest that Google is providing open-ended access to our users' data are false, period," Google's CEO Larry Page and chief legal officer David Drummond said in a message on their official company blog. "We had not heard of a program called PRISM until yesterday," they said, adding: "We provide user data to governments only in accordance with the law." Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg described the press reports as "outrageous," insisting that his firm only provided user information to the authorities when compelled to by law. Yahoo! issued a similar denial. "The notion that Yahoo! gives any federal agency vast or unfettered access to our users' records is categorically false," general counsel Ron Bell said. "We do not voluntarily disclose user information. The only disclosures that occur are in response to specific demands." Court approved Under PRISM, which has been running for six years, the US National Security Agency can issue directives to Internet firms demanding access to emails, online chats, pictures, files, videos and more uploaded by foreign users. The initial press reports that revealed the secret program suggested the NSA had some form of back door access to the servers of firms including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, Apple, PalTalk and YouTube. But Clapper's statement described a system whereby the government must apply to a secret US court for permission to target individuals or entities then issue a request to the service provider. "The government cannot target anyone under the court approved procedures ... unless there is an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose for the acquisition," Clapper said. Such a purpose, he continued, could be "the prevention of terrorism, hostile cyber activities or nuclear proliferation." He admitted that data on US citizens might be "incidentally intercepted" in the course of targeting a foreign national, but said this would not normally be shared within the intelligence community unless it confirmed a threat. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/06/20136904534684797.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:21:52 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:21:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Alarmed over U.S. snooping project, cyber world wants government to act | The Hindu Message-ID: <51B45740.8070104@gmail.com> things fall apart, the centre can hold? http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/alarmed-over-us-snooping-project-cyber-world-wants-government-to-act/article4795007.ece -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 06:32:23 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:32:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) As Bradley Manning Trial Begins, Press Predictably Misses the Point Message-ID: <51B459B7.5070104@gmail.com> Some more context for recent spying revelations... this soldier was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment according to an UN rapporteur. Emphasis in bold added. As Bradley Manning Trial Begins, Press Predictably Misses the Point By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone 07 June 13 ell, the Bradley Manning trial has begun, and for the most part, the government couldn't have scripted the headlines any better. In the now-defunct Starz series Boss, there's a reporter character named "Sam Miller" played by actor Troy Garity who complains about lazy reporters who just blindly eat whatever storylines are fed to them by people in power. He called those sorts of stories Chumpbait. If the story is too easy, if you're doing a piece on a sensitive topic and factoids are not only reaching you freely, but publishing them is somehow not meeting much opposition from people up on high, then you're probably eating Chumpbait. There's an obvious Chumpbait angle in the Bradley Manning story, and most of the mainstream press reports went with it. You can usually tell if you're running a Chumpbait piece if you find yourself writing the same article as 10,000 other hacks. The Trials of Bradley Manning *The Trials of Bradley Manning* The CNN headline read as follows: "Hero or Traitor? Bradley Manning's Trial to Start Monday." NBC went with "Contrasting Portraits of Bradley Manning as Court-Martial Opens." Time magazine's Denver Nicks took this original approach in their "think" piece on Manning, "Bradley Manning and our Real Secrecy Problem": /Is he a traitor or a hero? This is the question surrounding Bradley Manning, the army private currently being court-martialed at Fort Meade for aiding the enemy by wrongfully causing defense information to published on the Internet./ The Nicks thesis turned out to be one chosen by a lot of editorialists at the Manning trial, who have decided that the "real story" in the Manning case is what this incident showed about our lax security procedures, our lack of good due diligence in vetting the folks we put in charge of our vital information. "With so many poorly protected secrets accessible to so many people, it was only a matter of time," Nicks wrote. "We can be grateful that Bradley Manning rather than someone less charitably inclined perpetrated this leak." Dr. Tim Johnson of the Telegraph took a similar approach, only he was even less generous than Nicks, calling Manning the "weirdo [who] tried to bring down the government," a man who was "guilty as hell" and "deserves to do time." "Private Manning was a self-absorbed geek who should never have enjoyed the level of access that he did," Johnson wrote. He went on to argue that Manning's obvious personality defects should have disqualified him for sensitive duty, and the fact that he was even hired in the first place is the real scandal of this trial: /His personality breakdown was there for all to see -- criticising US policy on Facebook, telling friends, "Bradley Manning is not a piece of equipment", and even entertaining "a very internal private struggle with his gender". He told hacker Adrian Lamo that he "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history." You go, girl./ All of this shit is disgraceful. It's Chumpbait. If I was working for the Pentagon's PR department as a hired press Svengali, with my salary eating up some of the nearly five billion dollars the armed services spends annually on advertising and public relations, I would be telling my team to pump reporters over and over again with the same angle. I would beat it into the head of every hack on this beat that the court-martial is about a troubled young man with gender identity problems, that the key issue of law here rests inside the mind of young PFC Manning, that the only important issue of fact for both a jury and the American people to decide is exactly the question in these headlines. Is Manning a hero, or a traitor? Did he give thousands of files to Wikileaks out of a sense of justice and moral horror, or did he do it because he had interpersonal problems, because he couldn't keep his job, because he was a woman trapped in a man's body, because he was a fame-seeker, because he was lonely? You get the press and the rest of America following that bouncing ball, and the game's over. Almost no matter what the outcome of the trial is, if you can convince the American people that this case is about mental state of a single troubled kid from Crescent, Oklahoma, then the propaganda war has been won already. *Because in reality, this case does not have anything to do with who Bradley Manning is, or even, really, what his motives were. This case is entirely about the "classified" materials Manning had access to, and whether or not they contained widespread evidence of war crimes.* *This whole thing, this trial, it all comes down to one simple equation. If you can be punished for making public a crime, then the government doing the punishing is itself criminal.* *Manning, by whatever means, stumbled into a massive archive of evidence of state-sponsored murder and torture, and for whatever reason, he released it. The debate we should be having is over whether as a people we approve of the acts he uncovered that were being done in our names.* Slate was one of the few outlets to approach the Manning trial in a way that made sense. Their story took the opportunity of the court-martial to remind all of us of the list of horrors Manning discovered, including (just to name a very few): * During the Iraq War, U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to thousands of field reports... * There were 109,032 "violent deaths" recorded in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, including 66,081 civilians. Leaked records from the Afghan War separately revealed coalition troops' alleged role in killing at least 195 civilians in unreported incidents, one reportedly involving U.S. service members machine-gunning a bus, wounding or killing 15 passengers... * In Baghdad in 2007, a U.S. Army helicopter gunned down a group of civilians, including two Reuters news staff... This last incident was the notorious video in which our helicopter pilots lit up a group of civilians, among other things wounding two children in a van, to which the pilots blithely commented , "Well, it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle." Except that there had been no battle, none of the people on the street were armed, it was an attack from space for all these people knew -- and oh, by the way, we were in their country, thanks to a war that history has revealed to have been a grotesque policy error. It's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle. It's lines like this, truly horrific stuff that's evidence of a kind of sociopathic breakdown of our society, that this trial should be about. Not Manning's personal life. *Unfortunately, the American people would rather make it about Manning, because they know they were complicit in those and other murders, because they loudly brayed for war in Iraq for years, no matter how often and how loudly it was explained to them that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were not the same person.* Hacks like Johnson reassure the public that they have the right to have the results of their own moral decisions kept well hidden from them. His kind of propaganda soothes people into believing that Manning was just a freak and a weirdo, a one-off kink in the machinery, who hopefully will be thrown in the hole forever or at least for a very long time, so that we don't have to hear about any of this awful stuff again. At the very least, according to Johnson, we shouldn't have to listen to anyone call Manning a hero: /At the centre of the storm is a person who one suspects should never have been in uniform, let along enjoying access to military intelligence, who has blundered into the history books by way of a personality crisis. Incredibly, some people actually want to celebrate him as a gay icon . Who next, the Kray twins?/ Wow. We're the ones machine-gunning children, and yet Manning is the one being compared to the murdering Kray twins? And Jesus, isn't being charged with the Espionage Act enough? Is Manning also being accused of not representing gay America skillfully enough on the dock? Here's my question to Johnson: What would be the correct kind of person to have access to videos of civilian massacres? Who's the right kind of person to be let in the know about the fact that we systematically turned academics and other "suspects" over to the Iraqi military to be tortured? We want people who will, what, sit on this stuff? Apparently the idea is to hire the kind of person who will cheerfully help us keep this sort of thing hidden from ourselves. The thing is, when it comes to things like the infamous "Collateral Murder" video, whether it's Bradley Manning or anyone else, any decent human being would have had an obligation to come forward. Presented with that material, you either become part of a campaign of torture and murder by saying nothing, or you have to make it public. Morally, there's no option. Yes, Manning went beyond even that. One can definitely quibble about the volume of the material he released and the manner in which he released it. And I get that military secrets should, in a properly functioning society, be kept secret. But when military secrets cross the line into atrocities, the act of keeping these secrets secret ceases to have much meaning. The issues to be debated at this trial are massive in scope. They're about the character of the society we've all created, not the state of mind of one troubled Army private. If anyone tries to tell you anything else, he's selling you something. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rsn-W.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 823 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 07:46:34 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 07:46:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] EU and India Message-ID: Dear All, I think we need to retrieve the point of balance, and to do that we need to come together. The information below comes from a Caribbean mailing list that discusses the Economic Partnership Agreements proposed between the European Union (EU) and the Africa, Caribbean, Pacific (ACP) countries - c-epas-request at pambazuka.org Deirdre ?Citizens and Parliamentarians are increasingly worried about the risks that the EU?s corporate trade agenda poses to food safety, digital rights and environmental protection. Trade negotiations should be conducted in an open and democratically-accountable way, and it is high time that the Commission stops handing over the negotiating agenda to multinational companies. It is disappointing that the court ruling seems to point in exactly the opposite direction?, stated Pia Eberhardt. Court ruling fails to stop business lobbies' privileged access in EU-India trade talks http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/court-ruling-fails-stop-business-lobbies-privileged-access-eu-india-trade-talks Brussels, 7 June ? In a ruling delivered today following a lawsuit by lobby watchdog Corporate Europe Observatory, the EU?s General Court in Luxembourg concludes that the European Commission did not violate EU rules when withholding information about the EU-India free trade talks from the public, even though it had already shared the information with corporate lobby groups. Corporate Europe Observatory warns that this decision risks deepening the secrecy around EU trade negotiations and legitimises the Commission?s practice of granting corporate lobby groups privileged access to its policy-making, at the expense of the wider public interest. The lawsuit, which was filed in February 2011, was a last resort for Corporate Europe Observatory after the Commission refused to fully release documents related to the EU?s ongoing trade negotiations with India, including meeting reports, emails and a letter, which it had sent to industry groups including the European employers? federation BusinessEurope, one of the most powerful corporate lobby groups in Brussels. The Commission claimed that the censored information was 'sensitive' as it concerned EU priorities and strategies in the negotiations and argued that public disclosure would undermine the EU?s international relations. Corporate Europe Observatory argued that the information, which the Commission had already shared with the business world at large, could not suddenly become confidential when a public interest group asked for it. The group accused the Commission of manifest discrimination in favour of corporate lobby groups and violating the EU?s access to information rules. In a first reaction to the ruling, Corporate Europe Observatory trade campaigner Pia Eberhardt said: ?There is a big risk that the Commission will see the court ruling as a green light to continue to develop its trade policy behind closed doors, together with, and for, a tiny elite of corporate lobby groups. The result is a trade policy that caters for big business needs, but works against the interests of the bulk of the population in the EU and other parts of the world.? The judgement comes as the EU and India are reportedly sorting out their last differences, in order to ink their final proposal for a free trade deal before elections in the EU and in India in 2014. On both sides, trade unions, farmers? groups, patients' organisations and other civil society groups have repeatedly raised concerns about the potentially devastating impacts of the agreement, particularly on access to medicines and the livelihoods of Indian farmers and street traders. CEO believes that the court ruling has potentially serious implications for other trade policies, such as the upcoming free trade negotiations between the EU and the US. ?Citizens and Parliamentarians are increasingly worried about the risks that the EU?s corporate trade agenda poses to food safety, digital rights and environmental protection. Trade negotiations should be conducted in an open and democratically-accountable way, and it is high time that the Commission stops handing over the negotiating agenda to multinational companies. It is disappointing that the court ruling seems to point in exactly the opposite direction?, stated Pia Eberhardt. Corporate Europe Observatory will now carefully analyse the ruling and consider next steps. A potential appeal would need to be filed within two months and ten days. * * * * * * * * * * * P i a E b e r h a r d t Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) Cranachstra?e 48 50733 Cologne Germany www.corporateeurope.org Tel.: ++49 (0)221 789 678 10 Mobile: ++49 (0) 152 56 30 91 02 pia at corporateeurope.org skype: piaebse Sign up to the CEO e-newsletter: http://www.corporateeurope.org/subscribe-our-newsletter -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 9 07:36:32 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 17:06:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <51B45529.70301@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> <51B45529.70301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f28b914ab.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Bought and paid for, you say. It is quite funny where I keep missing the fat paychecks someone is supposed to be sending me to listen to this 'tangential' stuff Whoever is supposed to pay me for this, I demand a raise, you hear? The inflation I get to face here isn't entirely because of hot air from eminent third worldist libertarians who feel empowered to claim with impunity that people disagreeing with their views are quite simply paid lackeys of big government, evil corporations, or any of the other bugbears that infest the global north. --srs (htc one x) On 9 June 2013 3:42:57 PM Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Yes we can change this. On this list these matters are tangential for some > of the active players here. If there is a denial of the problem, or > obstructions in even seeking to discuss it then democracy or not, it does > not matter. Seems like much of the mainstream press and civil society is > bought and paid for (by association or through 'ideology) which is why in > even in finance bankers get away with stuff while homeowners are foreclosed > upon on fraudulent documents. That too can be changed. Everything can be > changed. Sometimes to keep things the same everything else needs to be changed. > > Funny thing about this issue though is that there is bipartisan support > (Foreign Intelligence Committee). There is consensus on this issue. And > that is democratic too. How does it feel to be treated like Afghans, > Iraqi's, Latino's, Africans and Asians? Good for the goose, good for the > gander... as we used to say in our interminable arguments before... some > counted on foreigners being treated differently, and so it was ok because > 'they hate our freedoms'. Madison sought to dispel this myth. > > Do you think one can work against the ruthlessness of the singlerooters and > not be idealist? And, Idealism must be tempered by realism. The realism not > to be hounded, for instance, on this list, for holding third worldist > views. And when a change is made, then protests begin. And this is a > non-binding forum :) > > In short, you all in the N. America's are going to get your butts kicked > (it has been happening but mandatory optimism seems to get in the way of > feeling it, as EFF has been pointing out for a long time, and now the ACLU) > and perhaps it is time for a change... let's see. As I said, I will not be > holding my breadth, but I suspect that lots of people will be Swartzed. > > This is just an outsider view, so may be coloured by all sorts of > prejudices and unfocussed because of distance, but it seems (at rough > approximation) that progressive forces are poorly organised on this issue > (in collecting power terms) and in any event are characterised by sterling > performers (like EFF) and others with coalitions that seem to have too many > hypocrites. > > Pity, so much of this is emancipatory. > > Riaz > > > On 2013/06/08 06:50 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > > > I’m still not sure if you agree or disagree with my contention that in a > modern democracy we have a chance to change this type of behaviour by those > in power. I understand that historically things were different. I > understand that some people don’t think that we have a chance to change > this. I understand that many people have written or spoken about this. What > I don’t understand so far is if you agree or disagree that in a modern > democracy this can be changed. I’m not saying it would be easy or even that > the odds are good. All I’m saying is the chance exists and I for one am > working to making it happen. I don’t believe that defeatism is useful in > reality or as an argument against working for change. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > *From:*Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* June-08-13 8:06 AM > > *To:* Kerry Brown > > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > > > I believe in the reality of choice. > > > > To translate, from one Third World perspective, pithily: > > > > 1. Imperialism (abroad) breeds tyranny at home - Madison saw it. Foreign > entanglements were a real problem because of the kind of people it > strengthened in power. > > > > 2. Europe later America has had the tools for the emancipation of > humanity. They have not been up to the task. Hence the challenge by some > third worldists on the monopoly of definition and the rights to determine > the terms of the terms of the debate (much like Haitian's took liberte, > egalite, fraternity and gave the vote to all irrespective of property > ownership). > > > > 3. As Pouzin pointed out, this is old hat, but gets coverage now. > Groundless (as meta-narrative - like centre/periphery, third worldism) > "evidence" cannot rebut the presumption in favour of advanced countries who > live under a dualistic system - increasingly democratic but also paranoic > and hence authoritarian-like. > > > > 4. In historical time, Madison points out this has been constitutive of > democracy itself, much like the early US settlers who wanted to be free > men, including free to keep slaves. > > > > Riaz > > > > On 2013/06/08 05:43 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > > > I’m not sure of your point. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with > > my contention that in a modern democracy we have a chance to > > change this type of behaviour by those in power? > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Riaz > > K Tayob > > *Sent:* June-08-13 7:19 AM > > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news > > | guardian.co.uk > > > > In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly > > given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, > > has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. > > *A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not > > long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against > > foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at > > home.* Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, > > whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the > > armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the > > people. > > > > * Speech, Constitutional Convention > > > > (1787-06-29 > > > ), > > from Max Farrand's /Records of the Federal Convention of > > 1787,/ vol. I [1] > > > > > (1911), p. 465 > > > > On 2013/06/08 04:45 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > > > Here is a Canadian perspective on this. How many other > governments are doing this? > > > > > > > http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6869/125/ > > > > > > > We are living in 1984. This is not just a privacy issue. It is a > fundamental change in our western democratic values. The only way we can > change this is by keeping this at the forefront in the media. It must be a > top issue in all elections. That is the good thing about democracies. > Change is possible. It may take a long time, but it is possible. > > > > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Sun Jun 9 08:38:14 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:38:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <13f28b914ab.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> <51B45529.! 70301@gmail.com> <13f28b914ab.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <840631C1-A17F-495A-B6C0-01C99D51FACE@ella.com> On 9 Jun 2013, at 07:36, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Bought and paid for, you say. It is quite funny where I keep missing the fat paychecks someone is supposed to be sending me to listen to this 'tangential' stuff No, I think people like us, civil society, were bought and paid for by ideology. My impression, to be contrarian, was that I was buying and paying for all this. By my taxes, and by willingness to be a product that Google and Facebook sell. > > Whoever is supposed to pay me for this, I demand a raise, you hear? The inflation I get to face here isn't entirely because of hot air from eminent third worldist libertarians who feel empowered to claim with impunity that people disagreeing with their views are quite simply paid lackeys of big government, evil corporations, or any of the other bugbears that infest the global north. > > --srs (htc one x) > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 08:46:22 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 08:46:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Boundless Informant: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data In-Reply-To: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> References: <029001ce64e8$dc5dad00$95190700$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:10 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What this below appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are > done within and in accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which > is, of course, designed to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that > is being done is another question of course). **** > > What it also says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are > to be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game. Given the > global reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the > central role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities > including Internet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based > technical community in all aspects of the technical operation of the > Internet the implications of this position need hardly be spelled out.**** > > Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear > to have no rights and little protections except those that totally > outclassed institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy > protection regimes might provide to their citizens. **** > > Of course, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the > dominant US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws > outside of the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society > and technical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that > no such regulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be > more or less non-operational. > Sovereignty concerns prevent such a regime from ever coming about, it's not "collaborators" preventing this. > **** > > BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the question I posed earlier to > McTim and others re: the position and response of the "technical community" > to these revelations. > Since the T&A Community only has specific reps to deal with UN activities, you probably won't get one, though you may get statements from individuals and/or specific organisations. BTW, can you look into where my "paymasters" have been sending my checks? Like Suresh, mine have never gotten to me! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 9 08:48:50 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:18:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <840631C1-A17F-495A-B6C0-01C99D51FACE@ella.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> <51B31261.3040203@cafonso.ca> <0a8a01ce644c$a11e6960$e35b3c20$@gmail.com> <51B33D69.7090503@gmail.com> <51B34868.9060108@gmail.com> <51B45529.! 70301@gmail.com> <13f28b914ab.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <840631C1-A17F-495A-B6C0-01C99D51FACE@ella.com> Message-ID: <13f28fb4434.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Which makes it ironic that riaz trusts a gmail account while railing all the while that google is selling out to the nsa --srs (htc one x) On 9 June 2013 6:08:14 PM Avri Doria wrote: > > On 9 Jun 2013, at 07:36, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > Bought and paid for, you say. It is quite funny where I keep missing the > fat paychecks someone is supposed to be sending me to listen to this > 'tangential' stuff > No, I think people like us, civil society, were bought and paid for by > ideology. > > My impression, to be contrarian, was that I was buying and paying for all > this. By my taxes, and by willingness to be a product that Google and > Facebook sell. > > > > Whoever is supposed to pay me for this, I demand a raise, you hear? The > inflation I get to face here isn't entirely because of hot air from eminent > third worldist libertarians who feel empowered to claim with impunity that > people disagreeing with their views are quite simply paid lackeys of big > government, evil corporations, or any of the other bugbears that infest the > global north. > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 10:40:47 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 10:40:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] How PRISM could ruin Apple, Google, and every other big tech company. Message-ID: <036901ce651f$6051d3d0$20f57b70$@gmail.com> This seems to me to capture the issue on the corporate side very well... It doesn't really matter whether the Internet corps were direct parties to the surveillance (although the credibility of individual corporate executives is another issue), what does matter is that this surveillance was going on either wittingly, unwittingly (or as they say half-wittingly...) on their watch. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/prism_apple_goog le_microsoft_how_the_nsa_s_surveillance_program_could_ruin.html http://tinyurl.com/k6l8zl2 M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From andersj at elon.edu Sun Jun 9 11:34:14 2013 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 15:34:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director, Imagining the Internet Center www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) Twitter: @JannaQ https://twitter.com/JANNAQ LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jannaanderson Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/janna.anderson On 6/9/13 1:06 AM, "Ian Peter" wrote: >works for me > >-----Original Message----- >From: Tapani Tarvainen >Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:52 PM >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > >I'm happy with that. > > Tapani > >On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams >(williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > >> This is the text we are suggesting. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports >> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >>HTML5 >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >>rights >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >>inclusion >> of >> DRM in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement >>"EFF's >> Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >> Deirdre >> >> > >> > >> >> On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the >> > recently proposed changes. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > >> >> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were >> >> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I >>suggest >> >> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised >> >> sentence. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams >> >> wrote: >> >> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I >> >> think??) to >> >> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth >> >> trying >> >> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's >> >> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. >> >> > >> >> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> >>>Foundation (EFF) >> >> >>> >> >> >>> > >> >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >>in >> >> HTML5 >> >> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >> >> rights >> >> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> >> inclusion of >> >> > DRM in HTML5." >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >> >> >>> > statement >> >> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >>> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> >> >> >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not >> >> >> object >> >> we >> >> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be >> >> something like >> >> >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >>in >> >> HTML5 >> >> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise >>the >> >> rights >> >> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> >> inclusion of >> >> >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Catherine >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Catherine Roy >> >> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second >> >> >> sentence: >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >>HTML5 >> >> >> has >> >> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion >>of >> >> digital >> >> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> >> to this: >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >>HTML5 >> >> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason >> >> particularly >> >> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> >> >> HTML5 >> >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hi all, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, >>EFF >> >> has >> >> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to >>be >> >> more >> >> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. >> >> >>> Sending >> >> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, >>while >> >> having >> >> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of >> >> >>> turning >> >> this >> >> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the >> >> technical >> >> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, >>restricted >> >> media, >> >> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed >>(to >> >> which I >> >> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short >>term, >> >> the best >> >> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue >>that >> >> this work >> >> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue >>of >> >> saying >> >> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as >>to >> >> why it >> >> >>> has filed this FO. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >> >> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the >> >> >>> EFF's >> >> FO by >> >> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was >> >> >>> with >> >> the >> >> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain >> >> >>> *why* >> >> we >> >> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and >> >> sweet to >> >> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we >> >> >>> support >> >> it >> >> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the >> >> >>> heart >> >> of >> >> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and >> >> thurough on >> >> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have >> >> >>> misunderstood >> >> the >> >> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the >> >> group and >> >> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns >>on >> >> >>> this >> >> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is >> >> under >> >> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every >> >> >>> action >> >> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C >> >> >>> employee >> >> in a >> >> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be >> >> >>> trying >> >> to >> >> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM >>compatibility >> >> in HTML >> >> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I >> >> think it >> >> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Best regards, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Catherine >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> [1] >> >> >>> >> >> >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jun/06/html5-drm-w3c-open-web >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to >>make >> >> the >> >> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that >>had >> >> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence >> >> saying IGC >> >> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM >>in >> >> HTML5 >> >> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other >> >> >>> paragraphs >> >> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF >> >> >>> statement. >> >> I know >> >> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a >>lot >> >> >>> of >> >> to&fro >> >> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> >> something >> >> >>> simple. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a >> >> >>> blathering >> >> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise >>(for >> >> example >> >> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Best, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Adam >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> >> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working >>group >> >> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering >>why >> >> we are >> >> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better >> >> >>>> than >> >> I >> >> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that >>EFF's >> >> formal >> >> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter >> >> >>>> that >> >> enables >> >> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions >>(EME) >> >> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, >>in >> >> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the >> >> remote >> >> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with >> >> >>>> CDMs, >> >> which is >> >> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources >> >> >>>> (so >> >> >>>> basically DRM). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> >> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the >>charter >> >> >>>> as >> >> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for >> >> >>>> the >> >> Working >> >> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact >> >> >>>> that >> >> W3C, >> >> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that >>will >> >> enable the >> >> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal >> >> >>>> objection, >> >> IGC >> >> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Catherine >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> >> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier >>Foundation >> >> (EFF) >> >> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this >> >> morning. >> >> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support >>the >> >> >>>> recent EFF statement. >> >> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >> >> Charter", >> >> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant >>broadening >> >> >>>> of >> >> scope >> >> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> >> determination >> >> >>>> of end-user usage of content." >> >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg The >> >> objection is >> >> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a >>detailed >> >> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> >> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is >>to >> >> this >> >> >>>> reference in 2 - >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the >>updated >> >> HTML >> >> >>>> specification: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support >> >> >>>> use >> >> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, >> >> >>>> additions >> >> for: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> >> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >> >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/charter/2012/ >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's >>Objection >> >> >>>> to >> >> the >> >> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> >> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, >> >> >>>> which >> >> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >> >> >>>> Thank you >> >> >>>> Deirdre >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Adam >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is >>simple, >> >> >>>>> to >> >> the >> >> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> >> >>>>> unprovable >> >> facts, I >> >> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is >>also >> >> >>>>> one >> >> of the >> >> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as >>someone >> >> on the W3C >> >> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be >>at >> >> >>>>> the >> >> margin >> >> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the >> >> end, be on >> >> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> >> browsers >> >> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> >> shutting out >> >> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from >>content >> >> >>>>> (in >> >> this >> >> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content >>but >> >> it could >> >> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a >> >> wordsmith and >> >> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would >>like >> >> to see >> >> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights >>and >> >> sovereignty >> >> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Catherine >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Sala, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a >>separate >> >> site >> >> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >> >> Perhaps you >> >> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how >>many >> >> people >> >> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> Foundation >> >> >>>>> (EFF) >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >> >> >>>>> HTML5 >> >> has >> >> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the >>inclusion >> >> of digital >> >> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >> >> >>>>> statement >> >> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long >>and >> >> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Adam >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >>wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/digressit/archives/112 where you can >>add >> >> your >> >> >>>>> comments and suggest text. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Kind Regards, >> >> >>>>> Sala >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >>>>> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Dear All, >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have >>revised >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the >>sentence >> >> still in >> >> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the >> >> balance of >> >> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums >> >> like the DRM >> >> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded >> >> "Access". This is >> >> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be >>thoroughly >> >> explored by >> >> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are >>able >> >> to). I have >> >> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it >>would >> >> >>>>>> be >> >> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in >> >> relation to >> >> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has >>to >> >> say. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that >>deserve >> >> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> >> Statement >> >> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every >> >> comment in the >> >> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far >>more >> >> effective >> >> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so >>my >> >> apologies >> >> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested >>that >> >> whilst >> >> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time >>on? >> >> The key >> >> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in >>HTML >> >> >>>>>> 5? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings >>and >> >> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >> >> mistakes are of >> >> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the >>Statement >> >> is on the >> >> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to >> >> >>>>>> track >> >> comments >> >> >>>>>> on the revised statement. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF¹s Objection >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We >> >> >>>>>> endorse >> >> and >> >> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> Foundation >> >> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web >> >> Consortium (W3C) >> >> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for >> >> >>>>>> people >> >> across >> >> >>>>>> the planet. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious >>threat >> >> to an >> >> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal >> >> >>>>>> would >> >> be to shut >> >> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy >> >> interoperability and >> >> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers >>to >> >> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open >>environment >> >> >>>>>> of >> >> sharing >> >> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, >>health >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> diverse >> >> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a >>challenge >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> with >> >> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free >> >> >>>>>> internet >> >> (and the >> >> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that >> >> >>>>>> empowers >> >> >>>>>> communities. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection >>to >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> EFF's >> >> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> >>>>> Suva >> >> >>>>> Fiji >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> >>>>> 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: >> >> >>>>> 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: >> >> >>>>> 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 >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> ³The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" >>Sir >> >> >>>> William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> ³The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> ³The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > ³The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Tel: +679 3544828 >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> ³The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >>William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > > > > > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 12:13:24 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 21:43:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> Message-ID: +1 On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > works for me > > -----Original Message----- From: Tapani Tarvainen > Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 2:52 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 > > I'm happy with that. > > Tapani > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams ( > williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > > This is the text we are suggesting. >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and supports >> the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) >> >> > >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the inclusion >> of >> DRM in HTML5. >> >> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement "EFF's >> Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> > >> >> Deirdre >> >> > >> > >> >> On 8 June 2013 16:41, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < >> salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@**gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Good Point Adam and Deirdre, let's try and get a text to reflect the >> > recently proposed changes. >> > >> > Kind Regards, >> > Sala >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> > >> >> Catherine's and Deirdre's proposed changes are excellent. If we were >> >> in a formal process they'd be a welcome friendly amendment. I suggest >> >> we proceed noting support for EFF's position and this revised >> >> sentence. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Deirdre Williams >> >> wrote: >> >> > If the W3C meeting is in Japan on Monday and we need 48 hours (I >> >> think??) to >> >> > establish consensus then we don't really have time, but is it worth >> >> trying >> >> > with this format Sala? Several people had already accepted Adam's >> >> > suggestion, and this now speaks to Catherine's concerns. >> >> > >> >> >>> > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >> >>>supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> >>>Foundation (EFF) >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> > >> >> > "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> >> HTML5 >> >> > has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >> >> rights >> >> > of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> >> inclusion of >> >> > DRM in HTML5." >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >> >>> >> > statement >> >> >>>"EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On 8 June 2013 14:03, Catherine Roy >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Deirdre, >> >> >> >> >> >> That would be great. But just in case I was not clear, I do not >> >> >> object >> >> we >> >> >> keep the bit about stifling innovation either, so it could be >> >> something like >> >> >> : >> >> >> >> >> >> "We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> >> HTML5 >> >> >> has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the >> >> rights >> >> >> of end users; for these reasons particularly, we object to the >> >> inclusion of >> >> >> DRM in HTML5." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Catherine >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Catherine Roy >> >> >> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 08/06/2013 1:51 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> What about taking Adam's suggestion but changing the second >> >> >> sentence: >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> >> >> has >> >> >> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion of >> >> digital >> >> >> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> >> to this: >> >> >> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in HTML5 >> >> >> seriously compromises the rights of end users; for this reason >> >> particularly >> >> >> we object to the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in >> >> >> HTML5 >> >> >> Deirdre >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8 June 2013 13:18, Catherine Roy >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hi all, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> To be clear, I believe that as one W3C staffer put it recently, EFF >> >> has >> >> >>> decided to take the fight against DRM in HTML5 inside the W3C to be >> >> more >> >> >>> effective by becoming a member and following the W3C process. >> >> >>> Sending >> >> >>> petitions and writing indignated articles and press releases, while >> >> having >> >> >>> their place in the landscape, will go only so far in terms of >> >> >>> turning >> >> this >> >> >>> issue around. Also, since there are plenty of people arguing the >> >> technical >> >> >>> drawbacks in the several mailing lists related to HTML, restricted >> >> media, >> >> >>> etc., and that a technical formal objection has also been filed (to >> >> which I >> >> >>> have lent my support), EFF probably found that, in the short term, >> >> the best >> >> >>> way to have a grasp on the issue of DRM in HTML5 was to argue that >> >> this work >> >> >>> is out of scope for the working group. But this remains an issue of >> >> saying >> >> >>> no to DRM in HTML5 and the EFF formal objection is very clear as to >> >> why it >> >> >>> has filed this FO. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> As for the IGC, I found it encourageing that there was finally a >> >> >>> semblance of agreement to make a public show of support for the >> >> >>> EFF's >> >> FO by >> >> >>> releasing a short statement to that effect. My problem here was >> >> >>> with >> >> the >> >> >>> statement itself. I believe it would be a good idea to explain >> >> >>> *why* >> >> we >> >> >>> support the objection. I understand that it needs to be short and >> >> sweet to >> >> >>> ensure consensus among this group. But simply saying that we >> >> >>> support >> >> it >> >> >>> because DRM "stifles innovation" is rather lacking IMHO. At the >> >> >>> heart >> >> of >> >> >>> this issue is users rights and the EFF FO is quite eloquent and >> >> thurough on >> >> >>> this aspect. I am kind of newish here so perhaps I have >> >>> >> misunderstood >> >> the >> >> >>> IGC interests but I thought users rights was a major one for the >> >> group and >> >> >>> had hoped a small snippet of a sentence regarding our concerns on >> >> >>> this >> >> >>> particular aspect would be good idea. Perhaps I was mistaken. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Finally, as I explained to someone off-list, I believe the W3C is >> >> under >> >> >>> enormous pressure at the moment regarding this issue and every >> >> >>> action >> >> >>> counts. So much pressure in fact that, as discussed by a W3C >> >> >>> employee >> >> in a >> >> >>> recent guardian article[1], the W3C Advisory Committee will be >> >> >>> trying >> >> to >> >> >>> reach consensus on the decision to include or not DRM compatibility >> >> in HTML >> >> >>> this coming Monday in Japan. So yes, time is of the essence but I >> >> think it >> >> >>> is still not too late to weigh in on this issue. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Best regards, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Catherine >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> [1] >> >> >>> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/**technology/2013/jun/06/html5-** >> drm-w3c-open-web >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 08/06/2013 7:41 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks Catherine, Deirdre. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I think, or hope, we are pretty much in agreement. I tried to make >> >> the >> >> >>> proposed IGC comment pretty simple, cutting the paragraphs that had >> >> >>> attracted the most disagreement. That left an opening sentence >> >> saying IGC >> >> >>> supports the EFF statement. 2nd sentence saying IGC thinks DRM in >> >> HTML5 >> >> >>> harmful, trying to capture the overall sense of the other >> >>> >> paragraphs >> >> >>> discussed on the list. 3rd sentence IGC supports the EFF >> >>> >> statement. >> >> I know >> >> >>> 1st and 3rd rather the same, but that was the point. After a lot >> >> >>> of >> >> to&fro >> >> >>> where we seemed not to be getting anywhere, just tried to make >> >> something >> >> >>> simple. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I suspect we won't get consensus on more. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> And either we say something simple or end up, again, with a >> >>> >> blathering >> >> >>> and generally meaningless set of contradictions and compromise (for >> >> example >> >> >>> see the IGC's February comment to the IGF open consultation). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Best, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Adam >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 8:41 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thank you Catherine - that's what I thought. >> >> >>> But if EFF has gone to such lengths to object to the working group >> >> >>> charter rather than to DRM in HTML5 directly then I'm wondering why >> >> we are >> >> >>> not simply supporting the EFF objection to the Charter? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On 7 June 2013 13:10, Catherine Roy >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hi Deirdre. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> I am sure someone from EFF on this list could explain it better >> >> >>>> than >> >> I >> >> >>>> so please correct me as needed but my understanding is that EFF's >> >> formal >> >> >>>> objection concerns an element of the HTML Working Group charter >> >> >>>> that >> >> enables >> >> >>>> the Working Group to propose the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) >> >> >>>> specification which effectively represents a technology that, in >> >> >>>> combination with Content Decryption Modules (CDMs), allows "the >> >> remote >> >> >>>> determination of end-user usage of content". EME is used with >> >> >>>> CDMs, >> >> which is >> >> >>>> a software component that permits access to encrypted resources >> >> >>>> (so >> >> >>>> basically DRM). >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> EFF has made a formal objection on the Working Group charter to >> >> >>>> basically argue that such work, which is formulated in the >> charter >> >>>> as >> >> >>>> "supporting playback of protected content", is out of scope for >> >> >>>> the >> >> Working >> >> >>>> Group deliverables. So in effect, EFF is objecting to the fact >> >> >>>> that >> >> W3C, >> >> >>>> through its HTML Working Group, propose a specification that will >> >> enable the >> >> >>>> use of Digital Rights Management (via CDMs) in HTML5. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> It is my understanding that by supporting the EFF formal >> >>>> >> objection, >> >> IGC >> >> >>>> is effectively saying no to DRM in HTML5. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Catherine >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> -- >> >> >>>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 07/06/2013 10:02 AM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Could someone please help to clarify things for me? >> >> >>>> I hadn't responded before about the Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >> (EFF) >> >> >>>> statement because I had no time to read the documents until this >> >> morning. >> >> >>>> My understanding is that the IGC was asked if it would support the >> >> >>>> recent EFF statement. >> >> >>>> The EFF statement is a "Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft >> >> Charter", >> >> >>>> indicating that the Charter "represents a significant broadening >> >> >>>> of >> >> scope >> >> >>>> for the HTML WG (and the W3C as a whole) to include the remote >> >> determination >> >> >>>> of end-user usage of content." >> >> >>>> https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/**w3c-formal-objection-html-wgThe >> >> objection is >> >> >>>> NOT to DRM in HTML5 as such, although the text contains a detailed >> >> >>>> discussion of that issue as justification fotr the objection. >> >> >>>> Particularly within the working group Charter, the objection is to >> >> this >> >> >>>> reference in 2 - >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> "Some examples of features that would be in scope for the updated >> >> HTML >> >> >>>> specification: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> additions to the HTMLMediaElement element interface, to support >> >> >>>> use >> >> >>>> cases such as live events or premium content; for example, >> >> >>>> additions >> >> for: >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> facilitating adaptive streaming (Media Source Extensions) >> >> >>>> supporting playback of protected content" >> >> >>>> http://www.w3.org/html/wg/**charter/2012/ >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> So please - are we discussing offering support to EFF's Objection >> >> >>>> to >> >> the >> >> >>>> Charter, or are we creating an IGC statement on DRM in HTML5? >> >> >>>> And if the latter, are we doing anything about EFF's Objection, >> >> >>>> which >> >> >>>> was what we were asked about in the first place? >> >> >>>> Thank you >> >> >>>> Deirdre >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> On 7 June 2013 01:54, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Catherine, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Does the EFF statement cover your concerns? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Adam >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 7, 2013, at 2:14 AM, Catherine Roy wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> While I support this latest formulation by Adam as it is simple, >> >> >>>>> to >> >> the >> >> >>>>> point and avoids ambiguous and perhaps (for the moment) >> >>>>> >> unprovable >> >> facts, I >> >> >>>>> feel it is lacking with regards to users' rights, which is also >> >> >>>>> one >> >> of the >> >> >>>>> key issues at the heart of this whole matter. That is, as someone >> >> on the W3C >> >> >>>>> restricted media mailing list mentioned, standards should be at >> >> >>>>> the >> >> margin >> >> >>>>> of debates, and if required to take part, should always, in the >> >> end, be on >> >> >>>>> the side of the user. Much like optimizing sites for particular >> >> browsers >> >> >>>>> that shut out certain users, there is a real problem here with >> >> shutting out >> >> >>>>> users who do not have the right software/hardware from content >> >> >>>>> (in >> >> this >> >> >>>>> case, much of the discussions revolve around premium content but >> >> it could >> >> >>>>> extend to any content that applies DRM). So, while I am not a >> >> wordsmith and >> >> >>>>> therefore apologize for not proposing exact wording, I would like >> >> to see >> >> >>>>> something more clear in the statement regarding users rights and >> >> sovereignty >> >> >>>>> over their euh, "equipment". >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Best regards, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Catherine >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>>>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On 2013-06-06 04:52, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Hi Sala, >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> To be honest, having to remember a url and jump off to a separate >> >> site >> >> >>>>> for such a small statement is a pain. In my opinion, anyway. >> >> Perhaps you >> >> >>>>> can see the stats on the http://www.igcaucus.org/ page, how many >> >> people >> >> >>>>> bother to visit vs the very large number who read the list? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> A cleaned up version of a short statement: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> >> >>>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> Foundation >> >> >>>>> (EFF) >> >>>>> > drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-**wg >> > >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management in >> >> >>>>> HTML5 >> >> has >> >> >>>>> the potential to stifle innovation and we object to the inclusion >> >> of digital >> >> >>>>> rights management (DRM) in HTML5. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >> >> >>>>> statement >> >> >>>>> "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> The EFF statement we're considering to support is itself long and >> >> >>>>> speaks for itself. See no need to add more than above. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Adam >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Jun 6, 2013, at 4:30 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> In case, people missed it. The revised Statement is live at: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/**digressit/archives/112where you can add >> >> your >> >> >>>>> comments and suggest text. >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Kind Regards, >> >> >>>>> Sala >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >>>>> > >> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Dear All, >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Further to the discussions on the mailing list, I have revised >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> first version to the one below. I have highlighted the sentence >> >> still in >> >> >>>>>> contention and also note that there are mixed reactions to the >> >> balance of >> >> >>>>>> the protection of intellectual property rights through mediums >> >> like the DRM >> >> >>>>>> to protect innovation and challenges to threats of impeded >> >> "Access". This is >> >> >>>>>> a very interesting debate and one I believe should be thoroughly >> >> explored by >> >> >>>>>> the IGC where we can come to some common ground (if we are able >> >> to). I have >> >> >>>>>> not had the time to read Frank La Rue's new report but it would >> >> >>>>>> be >> >> >>>>>> interesting to see his report of what the world is saying in >> >> relation to >> >> >>>>>> this conflict. I am of course interested in what the IGC has to >> >> say. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Roland and Avri raised some very interesting points that deserve >> >> >>>>>> discussion. As we speak, the Statement will be hosted on the >> >> Statement >> >> >>>>>> Workspace on the IGC website. I have tried to capture every >> >> comment in the >> >> >>>>>> attached document. I find that Statement Workspaces are far more >> >> effective >> >> >>>>>> in neatly allowing people to comment on each sentence etc, so my >> >> apologies >> >> >>>>>> if the attached document is inherently messy. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What are your collective thoughts on what Roland suggested that >> >> whilst >> >> >>>>>> there are many battles, this is not one we should spend time on? >> >> The key >> >> >>>>>> issues for your deliberation would be:- >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management? >> >> >>>>>> What is the IGC's position on Digital Rights Management in HTML >> >> >>>>>> 5? >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Thank you to all those for suggesting text and new wordings and >> >> >>>>>> phrases. I have tried to capture your views below. All the >> >> mistakes are of >> >> >>>>>> course mine. Let us have your thoughts. As soon as the Statement >> >> is on the >> >> >>>>>> Workspace, Norbert will inform us and this will allow us to >> >> >>>>>> track >> >> comments >> >> >>>>>> on the revised statement. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Revised Draft Statement on Support for EFF’s Objection >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) objects to >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5. We >> >> >>>>>> endorse >> >> and >> >> >>>>>> support the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> >> Foundation >> >> >>>>>> (EFF) and that the draft proposal from the World Wide Web >> >> Consortium (W3C) >> >> >>>>>> could stifle Web innovation and block access to content for >> >> >>>>>> people >> >> across >> >> >>>>>> the planet. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> We believe that the proposed standard by W3C is a serious threat >> >> to an >> >> >>>>>> open and free internet. The inherent danger of the proposal >> >> >>>>>> would >> >> be to shut >> >> >>>>>> out open source developers and competition, destroy >> >> interoperability and >> >> >>>>>> lock in legacy business models. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Much of the developing world relies on open source developers to >> >> >>>>>> enable OR CREATE mechanisms that allow for an open environment >> >> >>>>>> of >> >> sharing >> >> >>>>>> resources related to agricultural practices, education, health >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> diverse >> >> >>>>>> content. In such regions, access to information is a challenge >> >> >>>>>> and >> >> with >> >> >>>>>> serious resource constraints, but it is an open and free >> >> >>>>>> internet >> >> (and the >> >> >>>>>> resultant ease of collaboration/sharing information) that >> >> >>>>>> empowers >> >> >>>>>> communities. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> For the foregoing reasons we reiterate our strong objection to >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> >>>>>> support for DRM technologies in HTML5, and our agreement with >> >> >>>>>> the >> >> EFF's >> >> >>>>>> arguments in this regard. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> -- >> >> >>>>> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> >> >>>>> P.O. Box 17862 >> >> >>>>> Suva >> >> >>>>> Fiji >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> Twitter: @SalanietaT >> >> >>>>> Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro >> >> >>>>> Tel: +679 3544828 >> >> >>>>> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> >> >>>>> Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> ______________________________**______________________________ >> >> >>>>> 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: >> >> >>>>> 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: >> >> >>>>> 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 >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> >>> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -- >> >> >>> Catherine Roy >> >> >>> http://www.catherine-roy.net >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >> >> William >> >> > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >> > P.O. Box 17862 >> > Suva >> > Fiji >> > >> > Twitter: @SalanietaT >> > Skype:Salanieta.**Tamanikaiwaimaro >> > Tel: +679 3544828 >> > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >> > Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> > > > > > > > > ______________________________**______________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 16:53:27 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 16:53:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA whistleblower revealed Message-ID: <049f01ce6553$64b5f3a0$2e21dae0$@gmail.com> Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower -surveillance The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, including Booz Allen and Dell. The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity at his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have done nothing wrong," he said. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Sun Jun 9 17:05:49 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 14:05:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] NSA whistleblower revealed In-Reply-To: <049f01ce6553$64b5f3a0$2e21dae0$@gmail.com> References: <049f01ce6553$64b5f3a0$2e21dae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's a matter of Principle; right and wrong. Edward Snowden has,earned his place in the history books. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 1:53 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind revelations of NSA surveillance > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower > -surveillance > > The individual responsible for one of the most significant leaks in US > political history is Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former technical > assistant for the CIA and current employee of the defence contractor Booz > Allen Hamilton. Snowden has been working at the National Security Agency > for > the last four years as an employee of various outside contractors, > including > Booz Allen and Dell. > > The Guardian, after several days of interviews, is revealing his identity > at > his request. From the moment he decided to disclose numerous top-secret > documents to the public, he was determined not to opt for the protection of > anonymity. "I have no intention of hiding who I am because I know I have > done nothing wrong," he said. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 03:51:21 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:51:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <092301ce63d2$55a4f8c0$00eeea40$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130610095121.05cda45b@quill.bollow.ch> Michael, given that the Patriot Act requires US companies and their daughter companies worldwide to honor (without any effective checks and balances) privacy-infringing information demands from the US government (even when doing so is against local laws), repealing the Patriot Act will IMO indeed remove one major global problem. Greetings, Norbert Am Fri, 7 Jun 2013 18:56:57 -0400 schrieb "michael gurstein" : > I can see how that would possibly be useful to US folks but I can't > see how it does much for the other 1.2 billion or so non-USian > Internet users. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2013 2:20 PM > To: michael gurstein > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech > giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | > guardian.co.uk > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Great... > > > > So how are you suggesting we oppose this and exactly who/what are > > we opposing? > > > repealing the Patriot Act would be a useful first step. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 04:02:44 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:02:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130610100244.67e52c10@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and > > senator mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. > > Of course whether or not it will be is another story > > > > The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this > > Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, > etc) who can carry the ball for CS. While of course in any effective campaign on this issue, those US CS orgs will likely have a pivotal role, OF COURSE international civil society has every moral right (and IMO even a moral duty) to speak up. What this Caucus needs to do is to get organized in a way that empowers international civil society to speak up effectively and legitimately even while there are those who are seeking to prevent that from happening. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From katitza at eff.org Mon Jun 10 04:07:46 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 04:07:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] NSA has direct access to tech giants' systems for user data, secrAnet files reveal | World news | guardian.co.uk In-Reply-To: <20130610100244.67e52c10@quill.bollow.ch> References: <05a401ce6382$1f5d0050$5e1700f0$@gmail.com> <05d701ce6388$8cde6410$a69b2c30$@gmail.com> <06b701ce6398$f16bb670$d4432350$@gmail.com> <06db01ce639e$cc9bfac0$65d3f040$@gmail.com> <51B23975.1070806@itforchange.net> <13f2037367f.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> <20130610100244.67e52c10@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51B58952.1090106@eff.org> It is important that international civil society speaks up! The more the merrier. On 6/10/13 4:02 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >>> Not you perhaps. As a us citizen and through his congressman and >>> senator mctim is entitled to ask that anything at all be repealed. >>> Of course whether or not it will be is another story >>> >>> The caucus doesn't have any locus standi in this >> Agreed, and as CS there are US folks who work in this area (EFF, EPIC, >> etc) who can carry the ball for CS. > While of course in any effective campaign on this issue, those US CS > orgs will likely have a pivotal role, OF COURSE international civil > society has every moral right (and IMO even a moral duty) to speak up. > > What this Caucus needs to do is to get organized in a way that empowers > international civil society to speak up effectively and legitimately > even while there are those who are seeking to prevent that from > happening. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 04:28:29 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:28:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] or How will Snowden be Swartzed? Edward Snowden was NSA Prism leak source - Guardian Message-ID: <51B58E2D.70006@gmail.com> [Only question is how will this patriot(/enemy combatant?) be Swartzed? over time they will get you... as he says... but on this list, this guy would be anti-American... and let us be clear, equality before the law depends on whether the establishment likes you or not... Corzine of MF Global took billions of dollars of client funds from his hedge fund illegally and nothing... millions of fraudulent foreclosures on ordinary Americans sold finance they could not afford (affecting racial minorities much much more by the way)... welcome to the age of cumuppence... well done to EFF and others that have a critical rights based ideology with common humanity in focus... ] 10 June 2013 Last updated at 07:19 GMT Edward Snowden was NSA Prism leak source - Guardian Ed Snowden explains why he became a whistleblower (Video courtesy of The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras) A former CIA technical worker has been identified by the UK's Guardian newspaper as the source of leaks about US surveillance programmes. Edward Snowden, 29, is described by the paper as an ex-CIA technical assistant, currently employed by defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. The Guardian said his identity was being revealed at his own request. The recent revelations are that US agencies gathered millions of phone records and monitored internet data. A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the matter had now been referred to the Department of Justice as a criminal matter. The Guardian quotes Mr Snowden as saying he flew to Hong Kong on 20 May, where he holed himself up in a hotel. "Start Quote I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things" * Profile: Edward Snowden He told the paper that the extent of US surveillance was "horrifying", adding: "We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place." He added: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things... I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded." Mr Snowden said he did not believe he had committed a crime: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me." Asked what he thought would happen to him, he replied: "Nothing good." Mr Snowden said he accepted he could end up in jail. "If they want to get you, over time they will," he said. He said he also feared the US authorities would "act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night". Mr Snowden said he had gone to Hong Kong because of its "strong tradition of free speech". Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty with the US shortly before the territory returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. However, Beijing can block any extradition if it believes it affects national defence or foreign policy issues. US media response A USA Today editorial accepts that "the primary result of Snowden's actions is a plus. He has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created". But, it goes on, "pure motives and laudable effects don't alter the fact that he broke the law". An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argues that "some new restrictions" in the US intelligence gathering programme may be in order, adding: "If the government is looking for, say, calls between the United States and terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, why can't it simply demand records of calls to certain foreign countries. Is there no way to narrow the search to leave most Americans out of it?" Robert O'Harrow in the Washington Post writes that the growing reliance on contractors in US intelligence gathering "reflects a massive shift toward outsourcing over the past 15 years, in part because of cutbacks in the government agencies". He argues that this "has dramatically increased the risk of waste and contracting abuses... but given the threat of terrorism and the national security mandates from Congress, the intelligence community had little choice". Mr Snowden has expressed an interest in seeking asylum in Iceland. However, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post quoted Iceland's ambassador to China as saying that "according to Icelandic law a person can only submit such an application once he/she is in Iceland". 'Core values' In a statement , Booz Allen Hamilton confirmed Mr Snowden had been an employee for less than three months. "If accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm," the statement said. The first of the leaks came out on Wednesday night, when the Guardian reported a US secret court had ordered phone company Verizon to hand over to the National Security Agency (NSA) millions of records on telephone call "metadata". The metadata include the numbers of both phones on a call, its duration, time, date and location (for mobiles, determined by which mobile signal towers relayed the call or text). That report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communication in a programme known as Prism. All the internet companies deny giving the US government access to their servers. Prism is said to give the NSA and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) access to emails, web chats and other communications directly from the servers of major US internet companies. The data are used to track foreign nationals suspected of terrorism or spying. The NSA is also collecting the telephone records of American customers, but not recording the content of their calls. 'Gut-wrenching' On Saturday, US director of national intelligence James Clapper called the leaks "literally gut-wrenching". "I hope we're able to track down whoever's doing this, because it is extremely damaging to, and it affects the safety and security of this country," he told NBC News on Saturday. Continue reading the main story How surveillance came to light * 5 June: The Guardian reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon under a top secret court order * 6 June: The Guardian and The Washington Post report that the NSA and the FBI are tapping into US Internet companies to track online communication in a programme known as Prism * 7 June: The Guardian reports President Obama has asked intelligence agencies to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks * 7 June: President Obama defends the programmes, saying they are closely overseen by Congress and the courts * 8 June: US director of national intelligence James Clapper calls the leaks "literally gut-wrenching" * 9 June: The Guardian names former CIA technical worker Edward Snowden as the source of the leaks * How much do the spooks know? * Why every call matters * What can you learn from phone records? Prism was reportedly established in 2007 in order to provide in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information on foreigners overseas. The NSA has filed a criminal report with the US Justice Department over the leaks. The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches. However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds. That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials. Mr Clapper's office issued a statement on Saturday, saying all the information gathered under Prism was obtained with the approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (Fisa). Prism was authorised under changes to US surveillance laws passed under President George W Bush and renewed last year under Barack Obama. On Friday, Mr Obama defended the surveillance programmes as a "modest encroachment" on privacy, necessary to protect the US from terrorist attacks. "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about," he said, emphasising that the programmes were authorised by Congress. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: _68070698_68070697.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27059 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 04:47:53 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:17:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] or How will Snowden be Swartzed? Edward Snowden was NSA Prism leak source - Guardian In-Reply-To: <51B58E2D.70006@gmail.com> References: <51B58E2D.70006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <748CA2FD-026B-40A6-BEA5-11390FAFD052@hserus.net> Do note that he voluntarily disclosed his identity - and is evidently prepared to face charges. He will be a cause celebre, if not a martyr, for this cause - that's for sure. --srs (iPad) On 10-Jun-2013, at 13:58, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [Only question is how will this patriot(/enemy combatant?) be Swartzed? over time they will get you... as he says... but on this list, this guy would be anti-American... and let us be clear, equality before the law depends on whether the establishment likes you or not... Corzine of MF Global took billions of dollars of client funds from his hedge fund illegally and nothing... millions of fraudulent foreclosures on ordinary Americans sold finance they could not afford (affecting racial minorities much much more by the way)... welcome to the age of cumuppence... well done to EFF and others that have a critical rights based ideology with common humanity in focus... ] > > 10 June 2013 Last updated at 07:19 GMT > > Edward Snowden was NSA Prism leak source - Guardian > > <_68070698_68070697.jpg> > Ed Snowden explains why he became a whistleblower (Video courtesy of The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras) > > A former CIA technical worker has been identified by the UK's Guardian newspaper as the source of leaks about US surveillance programmes. > > Edward Snowden, 29, is described by the paper as an ex-CIA technical assistant, currently employed by defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. > > The Guardian said his identity was being revealed at his own request. > > The recent revelations are that US agencies gathered millions of phone records and monitored internet data. > > A spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said the matter had now been referred to the Department of Justice as a criminal matter. > > The Guardian quotes Mr Snowden as saying he flew to Hong Kong on 20 May, where he holed himself up in a hotel. > > “Start Quote > I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things” > > Profile: Edward Snowden > He told the paper that the extent of US surveillance was "horrifying", adding: "We can plant bugs in machines. Once you go on the network, I can identify your machine. You will never be safe whatever protections you put in place." > > He added: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things… I do not want to live in a world where everything I do and say is recorded." > > Mr Snowden said he did not believe he had committed a crime: "We have seen enough criminality on the part of government. It is hypocritical to make this allegation against me." > > Asked what he thought would happen to him, he replied: "Nothing good." > > Mr Snowden said he accepted he could end up in jail. "If they want to get you, over time they will," he said. > > He said he also feared the US authorities would "act aggressively against anyone who has known me. That keeps me up at night". > > Mr Snowden said he had gone to Hong Kong because of its "strong tradition of free speech". > > Hong Kong signed an extradition treaty with the US shortly before the territory returned to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. > > However, Beijing can block any extradition if it believes it affects national defence or foreign policy issues. > > > US media response > > A USA Today editorial accepts that "the primary result of Snowden's actions is a plus. He has forced a public debate on the sweepingly invasive programs that should have taken place before they were created". But, it goes on, "pure motives and laudable effects don't alter the fact that he broke the law". > > An editorial in the Chicago Tribune argues that "some new restrictions" in the US intelligence gathering programme may be in order, adding: "If the government is looking for, say, calls between the United States and terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen, why can't it simply demand records of calls to certain foreign countries. Is there no way to narrow the search to leave most Americans out of it?" > > Robert O'Harrow in the Washington Post writes that the growing reliance on contractors in US intelligence gathering "reflects a massive shift toward outsourcing over the past 15 years, in part because of cutbacks in the government agencies". He argues that this "has dramatically increased the risk of waste and contracting abuses... but given the threat of terrorism and the national security mandates from Congress, the intelligence community had little choice". > > Mr Snowden has expressed an interest in seeking asylum in Iceland. > > However, Hong Kong's South China Morning Post quoted Iceland's ambassador to China as saying that "according to Icelandic law a person can only submit such an application once he/she is in Iceland". > > 'Core values' > In a statement, Booz Allen Hamilton confirmed Mr Snowden had been an employee for less than three months. > > "If accurate, this action represents a grave violation of the code of conduct and core values of our firm," the statement said. > > The first of the leaks came out on Wednesday night, when the Guardian reported a US secret court had ordered phone company Verizon to hand over to the National Security Agency (NSA) millions of records on telephone call "metadata". > > The metadata include the numbers of both phones on a call, its duration, time, date and location (for mobiles, determined by which mobile signal towers relayed the call or text). > > That report was followed by revelations in both the Washington Post and Guardian that the NSA tapped directly into the servers of nine internet firms including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to track online communication in a programme known as Prism. > > All the internet companies deny giving the US government access to their servers. > > Prism is said to give the NSA and FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) access to emails, web chats and other communications directly from the servers of major US internet companies. > > The data are used to track foreign nationals suspected of terrorism or spying. The NSA is also collecting the telephone records of American customers, but not recording the content of their calls. > > 'Gut-wrenching' > On Saturday, US director of national intelligence James Clapper called the leaks "literally gut-wrenching". > > "I hope we're able to track down whoever's doing this, because it is extremely damaging to, and it affects the safety and security of this country," he told NBC News on Saturday. > > Continue reading the main story > How surveillance came to light > > 5 June: The Guardian reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is collecting the telephone records of millions of US customers of Verizon under a top secret court order > 6 June: The Guardian and The Washington Post report that the NSA and the FBI are tapping into US Internet companies to track online communication in a programme known as Prism > 7 June: The Guardian reports President Obama has asked intelligence agencies to draw up a list of potential overseas targets for US cyber-attacks > 7 June: President Obama defends the programmes, saying they are closely overseen by Congress and the courts > 8 June: US director of national intelligence James Clapper calls the leaks "literally gut-wrenching" > 9 June: The Guardian names former CIA technical worker Edward Snowden as the source of the leaks > How much do the spooks know? > Why every call matters > What can you learn from phone records? > Prism was reportedly established in 2007 in order to provide in-depth surveillance on live communications and stored information on foreigners overseas. > > The NSA has filed a criminal report with the US Justice Department over the leaks. > > The content of phone conversations - what people say to each other when they are on the phone - is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which forbids unreasonable searches. > > However, information shared with a third party, such as phone companies, is not out of bounds. > > That means that data about phone calls - such as their timing and duration - can be scooped up by government officials. > > Mr Clapper's office issued a statement on Saturday, saying all the information gathered under Prism was obtained with the approval of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court (Fisa). > > Prism was authorised under changes to US surveillance laws passed under President George W Bush and renewed last year under Barack Obama. > > On Friday, Mr Obama defended the surveillance programmes as a "modest encroachment" on privacy, necessary to protect the US from terrorist attacks. > > "Nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about," he said, emphasising that the programmes were authorised by Congress. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 04:55:15 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:55:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> Message-ID: <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL We have had quite a few expressions of support for the text below already, and no objections so far. Please review the proposed statement text as posted by Deirdre and included for reference below. If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. If however you disagree with IGC adopting and publishing this statement, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. ** Any objections should be posted by Wednesday June 12, 9am UTC. ** If no objections are received by that time, the proposed statement will be deemed to have been adopted by consensus. NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there are any objections, we will make a serious attempt to modify the statement in a way that would make it acceptable to all Caucus members. If that process of trying to reach full consensus fails, we will proceed to the rough consensus process which involves determining whether there is an overwhelming majority in support of the proposed statement. As Sala has already mentioned, we would use an online poll as our method of choice for determining whether there is an overwhelming majority in support. Greetings, Norbert > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams > (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > > > This is the text we are suggesting. > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > > Foundation (EFF) > > > > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in > > HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously > > compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons particularly, > > we object to the inclusion of > > DRM in HTML5. > > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their statement > > "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 10 07:54:41 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:54:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] Endorsements open for statement to HRC on surveillance and HR References: Message-ID: I haven't seen this cross-posted to the governance list yet (but I've been travelling, so excuse me if it has been). Please endorse this statement if you agree with it, it's being presented at the HRC today. Begin forwarded message: > From: Deborah Brown > Date: 10 June, 2013 6:46:53 PM GMT+08:00 > To: Anriette Esterhuysen > Cc: Joy Liddicoat , Carly Nyst , Katitza Rodriguez , Anne Jellema , Karina Brisby , Rafik Dammak , Jeremy Malcolm , Kevin Bankston , Joana Varon , Brett Solomon , Cynthia Wong , Eric King , Katherine Maher , Marcelo Daher > Subject: Re: Time sensitive- Input requested on potential statement to HRC on surveillance and HR > > Dear all, > > The final statement is now available at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/. If you haven't already noted that you would like to sign on here, please consider adding your endorsement at the link above. > > Just a quick note to explain that the statement will be made on behalf of APC because as an ECOSOC accredited org they are able to make interventions and have graciously facilitated and contributed this intervention. We have asked the speaker from HRW to take a look at the the Best Bits link for the current list of signatories before reading it at the afternoon session 1500 Geneva time, so she will be able to say that she is making the statement on behalf of xx orgs from around the world. So please make sure you endorse the statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ > > Thanks to all for your contributions on this! > Best, > Deborah > > -- > Deborah Brown > Policy Analyst > Access | AccessNow.org > E. deborah at accessnow.org > @deblebrown > PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 08:20:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:20:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Ellsberg: Snowden saving us from United Statsi of America In-Reply-To: <51B5BDC3.50705@bluewin.ch> References: <51B5BDC3.50705@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: When the tide goes out, we see who is not wearing a bathing suit... Edward Snowden: saving us from the United Stasi of America Snowden's whistleblowing gives us a chance to roll back what is tantamount to an 'executive coup' against the US constitution - [image: Daniel Ellsberg] - - Daniel Ellsberg - guardian.co.uk , **Monday 10 June 2013 11.30 BST** In my estimation, there has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material– and that includes the Pentagon Papers, for which I was responsible 40 years ago. Snowden's whistleblowing gives us the possibility to roll back what has amounted to an "executive coup" against the US constitution. Since 9/11, there has been, at first secretly but increasingly openly, a revocation of the bill of rights for which this country fought 200 years ago. In particular, the fourth and fifth amendments of the constitution, which safeguard citizens from unwarranted intrusion by the government into their private lives, have been virtually suspended. The government claims it has a court warrant under Fisa – but that *warrant is from a secret court*, shielded from effective oversight, and with the broadest possible interpretation. *This makes mockery of the rule of law*, let alone of the bill of rights. As Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, put it: "It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp." For the president then to say that there is judicial oversight is a nonsense – as is the oversight function of the intelligence committees in Congress. The fact that their leaders were briefed on this and went along with it, without question, only shows how broken the system of accountability is in this country. As the founder James Madison wrote : "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." When national security is invoked in the United States, that is what we now have. *In effect, Congress has delegated its responsibilities and powers to the executive. The oversight structure has been shown to be a total sham: the congressional committees concerned have been totally co-opted. They are simply black holes of information that the public needs to know.* The surveillance revealed by *Snowden's disclosures exposes this executive coup*: that this is done with Congress briefed, but without the ability to resist or even debate the measures openly, makes a mockery of the separation of powers. What has been created is the infrastructure of a police state. I do not say that the United States is a police state. We have not seen the mass detentions that would complete that process. But given the extent of this invasion of people's privacy , we do have the electronic and legislative infrastructure of one. If, for instance, there was now a war that led to a large-scale anti-war movement – like the one we had against the war in Vietnam – I fear for our democracy. If the government had then had the capability that it has now, I do not doubt there would have been mass detentions. These powers are extremely dangerous. In 1975, Senator Frank Church spoke of the National Security Agency in these terms : "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return." I would say we have, in fact, fallen into that abyss. *The **NSA **, **FBI ** and **CIA ** have, with the new digital technology, surveillance powers that the Stasi in the former East Germany could only have dreamed of. What has been feared and warned about has come to pass. The so-called intelligence community has become the United Stasi of America.* The question now is whether Senator Church was right or wrong that crossing the abyss was irreversible. Three days ago, I would have agreed that effective democracy was now impossible. But with this brave man Snowden willing to put his life on the line to get this information out, creating the possibility that others will join him, I think we can get back across the abyss. Whereas Bradley Manning 's access was very much more limited, to field-level information, Snowden's knowledge of his field is deep and extensive. The material he has released is higher in classification than what I had with the Pentagon Papers. *There are reasons for secrecy that have legitimacy, but what is not legitimate is to use that secrecy to hide action that is unconstitutional. Neither the president nor Congress may revoke the fourth amendment – but that's why what Snowden revealed was secret.* His action does not deserve prosecution or punishment; rather, he deserves our thanks and admiration. "Courage on the battlefield," said Bismarck, "is a common possession", but even "respectable people are lacking in civil courage." Snowden has displayed enormous civil courage. What I said 40 years ago was that I didn't care what they said about me; "just read the documents". To protect other people, I revealed what I had done so that I could say, "I did this on my own," without the knowledge or help of other people who might be suspected. We already know that the Department of Justice has ordered an investigation into the leak. So Snowden has done the same. By being out in the open, Snowden could now testify before Congress under oath – if it calls on him. He could not do that if he were still anonymous, or if he were in this country. In 1971, I was on a $50,000 bond for my role in the release of the Pentagon Papers, but in this climate Snowden would not be on a bond; he would be in jail – just like Brad Manning – without bail and incommunicado. Snowden did what he did because he recognised the NSA's surveillance programs for what they are: dangerous, unconstitutional activity. This wholesale invasion of Americans' and foreign citizens' privacy does not contribute to our our security; it puts in danger the very liberties we're trying to protect. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ellsberg.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7316 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 08:22:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:22:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: What PRISM means for Europe / Brussels Message-ID: <072b01ce65d5$344e28e0$9cea7aa0$@gmail.com> >From another list... details available on request... M -----Original Message----- Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 6:46 AM Subject: What PRISM means for Europe / Brussels Hi, Just a short note from Brussels where we're now seeing (and starting to explain) the massive US lobbying under a different light... Last year, the Commission presented a legislative proposal to update privacy laws in Europe. EDRi has been reporting on this for a while now and since then, lobbying efforts have only intensified: http://www.edri.org/US-DPR and http://www.edri.org/us-eudatap. A year ago, we were particularly worried about the fact that Article 42 on access to European data in the absence of an EU legal framework disappeared from in the first draft of the proposal. Even though this article has been re-introduced by the European Parliament, pressure is high to kick it out again. It would now be interesting to see what amendments to the data protection reform have actually been written by the companies that are cooperating with the NSA - to weaken Europe's standards: see http://lobbyplag.eu/docs and http://lobbyplag.eu/map. Best, -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 08:25:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:25:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Tangential + TWN Info: Please Stop Bullying the World's Poorest Countries Message-ID: This links to intellectual property, as Gandhi said, how we treat the most vulnerable is how to judge a civilisation... nice idea... ** TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun13/04) 7 June 2013 Third World Network www.twn.my *Please Stop Bullying the World's Poorest Countries **By Matthew Kavanagh * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-kavanagh/please-stop-bullying-the-_b_3391927.html This week, the Obama administration's trade agenda hit a bit of snag as the nominee to be lead trade negotiator was challenged over holding a half million dollars in offshore accounts. But as the President prepares to head for Africa this month, that's largely a distraction from a much bigger fight that should be more in the news: the U.S. bullying of least developed countries over intellectual property rules. In a move that has been roundly criticized by everyone from Doctors Without Bordersto the world's librarians and the U.S. technology industry , the Obama administration has taken the position that least developed countries must implement World Trade Organization rules on intellectual property within the next five years. Haiti, Bangladesh, Lestotho, and other Least Developed Countries (LDCs) have proposed an alternative: let the poorest countries in the world focus on getting medicines to their people, making textbooks available, and getting technologies to mitigate the effects of climate change instead of creating patent offices and enforcing the copyrights of multinational corporations. Their proposal simply suggests least developed countries should implement WTO rules when they are no longer officially "least developed." Remember these are the poorest countries in the world -- not rising powers like India or South Africa -- countries classified by the UN as facing the most dire poverty. But U.S. negotiators have rejected that and are strong-arming countries instead. For those who (like most of the world) have not been following the WTO recently as it has seemed to fade into irrelevance, a bit of background: When the WTO agreement was signed, the members agreed that LDCs would not have to implement the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement for a period of 10 years, which was extended for another 7 ½ years, but is now set to expire at the end of the month. There is literally no clear evidencethat implementing a strong patent system helps poor countries. That's why the U.S. refused to grant patents on British technology when we were a developing country and needed to build up our industrial base. Today, LDCs are in exactly the same position, but the U.S. is trying to foreclose the route that most countries in the world have taken to prosperity. The promise in 1994 was that rich countries would help LDCs to develop through transferring technology and help in their development -- so that they would reach a level of prosperity that might enable them to benefit from intellectual property rules. But it never happened -- today LDCs are largely falling further and further behind the wealthy world. LDCs face massive development challenges: More than half of the LDC population lives on less than $1.25 per day; adult literacy rate in LDCs is on average at 60.7%; only about 5 out of 100 have access to the worldwide web. In fact, more than half of the LDC population do not have access to electricity, water or sanitation facilities. LDCs are also dealing with natural disasters from severe droughts to earthquakes and tsunamis along with political instability. Yet these are the countries that the Obama administration wants to focus on implementing intellectual property rules? There are important reasons that LDCs should not enact these outlandish rules on IP. Not only is there no evidence it will help them grow, the costs are incredibly high. Just to name a few areas of concern, WTO rules would likely: - *Make life saving medicines too expensive:* LDCs, by definition, face substantial health problems, but TRIPS IP rules drive up the price of key medicines by allowing them to be patented. Life-saving technology gets put out of the reach of patients and national health programs. - *Condemn students to outdated books and software:* Both the distribution and translation of important books -- even out of date ones -- are routinely blocked by copyright rules. LDC education budgets, though, can rarely afford new bulk purchase of copyrighted books, a reasonable selection of academic journals for universities, or licensed copies of software. - *Undermine farming & food systems:* As our Supreme Court showed last month, IP can hinder traditional farming practices by preventing free exchange of IP-protected seeds and varietals that will be increasingly essential in places facing soil depletion and food insecurity. - *Make it impossible to adapt green technologies to fit tropical and low-resource climates:* Is it illegal for Bangladesh, the most climate insecure country in the world due to sea-level rise and river flooding, to adapt Israeli-designed water filtration systems to work in a low-resource, tropical setting? Without permission of the multiple-patent holders it could be under TRIPS. What makes this especially cynical is that, when the WTO rules were negotiated, the LDCs were promised this would not happen. Anticipating that it might take some countries a long time to reach prosperity (as it did for the U.S.), the TRIPS Agreement (Article 66.1) says that the Least Developed Countries "SHALL" be granted an extensions if they submit a "duly motivated request," which they did last November. But instead of granting that extension without conditions, the U.S, is extracting concessions. Can the U.S. win this negotiating round? Of course -- the most powerful country in the world vs. the weakest. But should it? No. Members of the U.S. Congress have called on the Administration to respect the rules of the game and support a full extension--not just a few years. Civil society groups representing millions agree.UN agencies do too . The only ones who do not, it seems, are President Obama's diplomats in Geneva. U.S. negotiators, it seems, do not know when its no longer ethical to play hardball. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 08:34:15 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:34:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? Message-ID: I support the statement which is just about to be read in Geneva. In the context of these revelations I find this information disturbing to say the least - a film clip from the BBC titled "Logging our lives with wearable technology" And Google provided me with an interesting thought this morning: Quote of the Day - Emile Zola - "If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to live out loud." I have the impression that the digital native lives "out loud" habitually. I wonder if digital natives would experience the same sense of outrage and betrayal that many of us are feeling. Is this a generation divide, a shift in values, or a suitable case for capacity building? Deirdre -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Mon Jun 10 08:55:51 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:55:51 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Deirdre, you raise important issues, but I believe that the digital natives are capable of feeling outrage regarding excesses of online surveillance. They do want to share certain aspects of their lives, but don't want others to make the decision for them. The changing nature of privacy is, in my opinion, an important conceptual debate with an important socio-psychological dimension. The one on surveillance a principled one and one that needs to be grounded in politico-legal terms. Kind regards Matthias Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] Im Auftrag von Deirdre Williams Gesendet: Montag, 10. Juni 2013 14:34 An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Betreff: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? I support the statement which is just about to be read in Geneva. In the context of these revelations I find this information disturbing to say the least - a film clip from the BBC titled "Logging our lives with wearable technology" And Google provided me with an interesting thought this morning: Quote of the Day - Emile Zola - "If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to live out loud." I have the impression that the digital native lives "out loud" habitually. I wonder if digital natives would experience the same sense of outrage and betrayal that many of us are feeling. Is this a generation divide, a shift in values, or a suitable case for capacity building? Deirdre -- "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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 09:19:11 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:19:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" Message-ID: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 09:26:21 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:26:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: How to do this? The more things change the more they stay the same. Legitimacy has been a third world issue, but now takes on a different garb. Will the non binding IGF be able to overcome its past prejudices and deal with this issue in what form or colour but recognise that there can be no internet regulation without representation? There aint no Tea Party on this list... what we have is a mixture of pro corporate ideas and activism on relevant issues without the systemic dimension... hey that is the dimension that economists missed when the financial crisis happened... On 10 June 2013 15:55, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear Deirdre, **** > > ** ** > > you raise important issues, but I believe that the digital natives are > capable of feeling outrage regarding excesses of online surveillance. They > do want to share certain aspects of their lives, but don’t want others to > make the decision for them. The changing nature of privacy is, in my > opinion, an important conceptual debate with an important > socio-psychological dimension. The one on surveillance a principled one and > one that needs to be grounded in politico-legal terms. **** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Matthias**** > > **** > > ** ** > > *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *Deirdre Williams > *Gesendet:* Montag, 10. Juni 2013 14:34 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] Our own worst enemies??**** > > ** ** > > I support the statement which is just about to be read in Geneva. **** > > ** ** > > In the context of these revelations I find this information disturbing > to say the least - a film clip from the BBC titled "Logging our lives with > wearable technology"**** > > And Google provided me with an interesting thought this morning: Quote of > the Day - Emile Zola - > "If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to > live out loud." > **** > > I have the impression that the digital native lives "out loud" habitually. > **** > > I wonder if digital natives would experience the same sense of outrage and > betrayal that many of us are feeling.**** > > Is this a generation divide, a shift in values, or a suitable case for > capacity building?**** > > Deirdre**** > > ** ** > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 10 09:29:03 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 10:29:03 -0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept such intrusions... Take a look: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. > > M > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 09:33:00 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:33:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Assuming those born in or around 1990 are digital natives, it was my masters students two years ago or so who made me realize that the younger generations are even more skeptical than I myself was then. It seemed to be a common pattern among them to give false personal information online; they only provided their real information when they really can't do otherwise given the nature of the service (banking, buying with a credit card which some were still reluctant doing even though it's more and more difficult to stay away from it.) And I'm talking about American students: they seemed to me even more skeptical than, say, their Indian fellows (but I realize that may just be the result of the former being more outspoken than the latter.) Mawaki On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Kettemann, Matthias ( matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear Deirdre, **** > > ** ** > > you raise important issues, but I believe that the digital natives are > capable of feeling outrage regarding excesses of online surveillance. They > do want to share certain aspects of their lives, but don’t want others to > make the decision for them. The changing nature of privacy is, in my > opinion, an important conceptual debate with an important > socio-psychological dimension. The one on surveillance a principled one and > one that needs to be grounded in politico-legal terms. **** > > ** ** > > Kind regards**** > > ** ** > > Matthias**** > > **** > > ** ** > > *Von:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *Im Auftrag von *Deirdre Williams > *Gesendet:* Montag, 10. Juni 2013 14:34 > *An:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Betreff:* [governance] Our own worst enemies??**** > > ** ** > > I support the statement which is just about to be read in Geneva. **** > > ** ** > > In the context of these revelations I find this information disturbing > to say the least - a film clip from the BBC titled "Logging our lives with > wearable technology"**** > > And Google provided me with an interesting thought this morning: Quote of > the Day - Emile Zola - > "If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to > live out loud." > **** > > I have the impression that the digital native lives "out loud" habitually. > **** > > I wonder if digital natives would experience the same sense of outrage and > betrayal that many of us are feeling.**** > > Is this a generation divide, a shift in values, or a suitable case for > capacity building?**** > > Deirdre**** > > ** ** > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 09:56:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 06:56:03 -0700 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130610135602.GA9751@hserus.net> Here, for example, is Bruce Schneier. http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/06/government_secr.html As for not seeing any as yet, it reminds me of that story of the guy who lost his keys in a dark corner and decided to search for them under a lamp post because it was brighter there. michael gurstein [10/06/13 09:19 -0400]: >I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. > >M > > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 10 09:57:24 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:27:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> Carlos Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical community' in that sense... parminder On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his > acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept > such intrusions... Take a look: > > http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. >> >> M >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 10:02:12 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:32:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> You broke your existing record here, parminder You do like to claim arbitration of who is, and who isn't, part of civil society, and use it to try and exclude the technical community from civil society on a wide variety of (mostly flimsy) grounds. Now you're trying to redefine "technical community" and exclude poor old Lauren from it? Not done. Really. And is Schneier not part of the technical community either? --srs (iPad) On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:27, parminder wrote: > > Carlos > > Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical community' in that sense... > > parminder > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept such intrusions... Take a look: >> >> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. >>> >>> M > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Jun 10 10:22:11 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:22:11 -0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Ah, I knew it... Parminder's message will spark a new round of interminable discussions about the nature of the tech.comm. --c.a. On 06/10/2013 11:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > You broke your existing record here, parminder > > You do like to claim arbitration of who is, and who isn't, part of civil society, and use it to try and exclude the technical community from civil society on a wide variety of (mostly flimsy) grounds. > > Now you're trying to redefine "technical community" and exclude poor old Lauren from it? > > Not done. Really. > > And is Schneier not part of the technical community either? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:27, parminder wrote: > >> >> Carlos >> >> Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical community' in that sense... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept such intrusions... Take a look: >>> >>> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html >>> >>> []s fraternos >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. >>>> >>>> M >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Mon Jun 10 10:37:35 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:37:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario. As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 10:38:43 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:08:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <1DB0490F-2B24-4F5F-9847-FA42BBAC9BD8@hserus.net> No, no - there's absolutely no sense beating the slightly damp spot on the ground where a dead horse once used to be. It does make sense to call out obvious cases of suppresio veri and suggestio falsi though, as and when they occur. That does lead to a certain amount of list traffic more than I'd desire .. --srs (iPad) On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:52, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > Ah, I knew it... Parminder's message will spark a new round of interminable discussions about the nature of the tech.comm. > > --c.a. > > On 06/10/2013 11:02 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> You broke your existing record here, parminder >> >> You do like to claim arbitration of who is, and who isn't, part of civil society, and use it to try and exclude the technical community from civil society on a wide variety of (mostly flimsy) grounds. >> >> Now you're trying to redefine "technical community" and exclude poor old Lauren from it? >> >> Not done. Really. >> >> And is Schneier not part of the technical community either? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:27, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> Carlos >>> >>> Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical community' in that sense... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept such intrusions... Take a look: >>>> >>>> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html >>>> >>>> []s fraternos >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >>>>> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. >>>>> >>>>> M >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Mon Jun 10 10:40:43 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:40:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Here's the link :) http://www.zdnet.com/prism-heres-how-the-nsa-wiretapped-the-internet-7000016565/?s_cid=e539&ttag=e539 > > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a > plausible technical scenario. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 11:07:57 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:07:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does > provide a plausible technical scenario. > > As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We > are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their > fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce > every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we > should be seeking unification and consensus. > I agree wholeheartedly! As I said before, it is doubtful there is a "technical community" rep who can meaningfully make a statement on behalf of the tens/hundreds of thousands of people who can be said to be "T&A", despite MG wanting a statement. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Mon Jun 10 11:20:48 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:20:48 +0000 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Another response on the technical feasibility of Prism and other NSA programs. http://unhandled.com/2013/06/07/a-taxonomy-of-prism-possibilities/ Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 11:43:27 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:43:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) ACLU Says Vast Surveillance Authority Must Have Public Oversight Message-ID: <51B5F41F.2040205@gmail.com> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 7, 2013 9:09 AM CONTACT: ACL U Josh Bell, 212-549-2666, media at aclu.org NSA Can Access Much of Americans’ Digital Lives ACLU Says Vast Surveillance Authority Must Have Public Oversight NEW YORK - June 7 - The government has the ability to secretly tap into a wide range of Americans’ online activities, according to reports in The Washington Post and The Guardian. “The secrecy surrounding the government’s extraordinary surveillance powers has stymied our system of checks and balances,” said Laura Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington Legislative Office. “Congress must initiate an investigation to fully uncover the scope of these powers and their constraints, and it must enact reforms that protect Americans’ right to privacy and that enable effective public oversight of our government. There is a time and a place for government secrecy, but true democracy demands that the governed be informed of the rules of play so as to hold elected officials to account.” The reported program appears to be based on the FISA Amendments Act, which authorizes surveillance of communications if one party is believed to be outside the U.S. The ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality was dismissed 5-4 by the Supreme Court in February on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not prove that they had been monitored. “The stories published over the last two days make clear that the NSA – part of the military – now has direct access to every corner of Americans’ digital lives,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, who argued the case before the Supreme Court. “Unchecked government surveillance presents a grave threat to democratic freedoms. These revelations are a reminder that Congress has given the executive branch far too much power to invade individual privacy, that existing civil liberties safeguards are grossly inadequate, and that powers exercised entirely in secret, without public accountability of any kind, will certainly be abused.” This press release is available at: aclu.org/national-security/nsa-can-access-much-americans-digital-lives ### The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 11:47:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 08:47:01 -0700 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) ACLU Says Vast Surveillance Authority Must Have Public Oversight In-Reply-To: <51B5F41F.2040205@gmail.com> References: <51B5F41F.2040205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130610154701.GA12110@hserus.net> Riaz K Tayob [10/06/13 18:43 +0300]: > >Josh Bell, 212-549-2666, media at aclu.org >NSA Can Access Much of Americans’ Digital Lives >ACLU Says Vast Surveillance Authority Must Have Public Oversight I never thought I would say this in response to a "tangential" email from Riaz but .. +1 to what the ACLU says. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 11:50:08 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:50:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: >From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show fractures within the civil society group. Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil society". If this means anything at all it means that we hold some values in common. If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we might even be able to get it to the top of the hill without its rolling down and squashing us. Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this may not be the best image to use in the context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep on struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus Deirdre On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown wrote: > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does > provide a plausible technical scenario. > > As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We > are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their > fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce > every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we > should be seeking unification and consensus. > > Kerry Brown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:20:45 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:20:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B5FCDD.5000200@gmail.com> Except that on this list it is fine to leave the public interest to the tech community. We have had great difficulty in simply getting acknowledgement that there is an intersection sometimes between the technical and the political or public interest. This is not about your post only, and is more about this list and treatment of Norbert and historically folk who have been marginalised (American cowboy style) like Karl Auerbach. For me there is a meaningful way to go forward, as we all must, but let's not pretend we share the same concerns or tactics. This list has been largely dominated by a world view that sought to exclude many of the issues that arose. Look at the aspersions cast at Michael Gurstein regarding selection on a tech committee - personalised, sour grapes, but nary anything about the lack of public interest issues adequately represented. This is.was the kitchen philosophy we deal with parading as civil reasoned engagement. I am happy if people change their minds, but I am not a revisionist to make it palatable for people who acted to block issues and now when circumstances overtake them... G. Marx said, if you don't like my principles, I have others... muhahahahaa. Unity is based on a shared set of values subject to paradiastol. On this list I will continue to maintain my scepticism of single rooters (as evolved), US apologists and exceptionalists (witting or unwitting). No internet regulation without meaningful representation. I take sides. Happy to engage with reason - as always. The call to unity and not to take sides is too coincidental. Let the tide go out, and we can see those (who were warned) who are not wearing bathing suits. This is a necessary process of credibility/analytical acumen. Why would you want to block those whose analytic was more on target than those who served you/us distraction or irrelevance? Did Norbert really mess up by creating spaces for Third World perspectives? Of course one needs to be practical, but do you even think that the IGC could come up with a statement on this if we can't even agree that the technical might be political? Or that concerns over whistleblowers who reveal war crimes deserve some consideration on this list? Or that companies in MS need to be treated as part of the estate but with equity considerations for public interest? Or libertarians who take only state power rather than the marriage of state and corporate power seriously. I like to temper my idealism with reality. American's of course have to watch out for the enemy within... i.e. whistleblowers... simple people of conscience who will be forgotten once Kim Kardashian gives birth that is... On 2013/06/10 05:37 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario. > > As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:29:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:29:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> It is Sisyphean task. But please let us avoid revisionism. We need to test the veracity and politics of colleagues on this list and see if they have been justified in taking the positions they do. Cream rises to the top, but crap also floats unfortunately. So let us not be too hasty in calls for unity. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. After all nothing like reality or evidence to do this job. After all, you all are anti-American by doing this by some definitions of the term on this list. And let us not forget that the people pushing these views have had inordinate play on this list so they have to reap what they have sown, and be graded by their perspicacity. On this issue in this space, slow is better. First they came for the socialists , and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists , and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews , and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. On 2013/06/10 06:50 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show fractures > within the civil society group. > Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil > society". If this means anything at all it means that we hold some > values in common. > If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we might > even be able to get it to the top of the hill without its rolling down > and squashing us. > Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this may > not be the best image to use in the context. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus > Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep on > struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus > Deirdre > > > On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown > wrote: > > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it > does provide a plausible technical scenario. > > As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them > conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. > Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot > of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not > useful and only causes division when we should be seeking > unification and consensus. > > Kerry Brown > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:36:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:36:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <085101ce65f8$a6f63090$f4e291b0$@gmail.com> Hmmm.. in the inimitable words of Mr. R. Raegan "trust but verify". M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 9:29 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or accept such intrusions... Take a look: http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. > > M > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:38:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:38:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Spiegel - NSA Whistleblower: 'I Do Not Expect To See Home Again' Message-ID: <51B60116.5080000@gmail.com> [An American brother, who is a global citizen... who will lose job, home, family and know the pain of exile. O like me and others on this list, an anti-American. Since Obama can authorise the killing of Americans under signature drone strikes perhaps this may be a solution to this intractable problem...] NSA Whistleblower: 'I Do Not Expect To See Home Again' By Marc Pitzke Photo Gallery: Whistleblower on the Run Photos REUTERS/ Ewen MacAskill/ The Guardian *He was once a cog in the US intelligence apparatus, but 29-year-old ex-CIA employee Edward Snowden has admitted to making one of the biggest intelligence leaks in history. He now faces severe consequences -- but President Obama also has a lot to answer for.* Edward Snowden sits in a hotel room in Hong Kong. He is pale and unshaven, his voice quiet but firm. For fear of spies, he has sealed off the door with cushions. He says he's only gone outside three times in the past three weeks. When the fire alarm went off, he suspected that someone was trying to lure him out of hiding. ANZEIGE Snowden is on the run. The scene, as depicted by London newspaper the Guardian /, /is the latest and most dramatic chapter of a spy thriller that in recent weeks has kept the United States and much of the world in suspense. Snowden is the highly sought-after man who notified the press about the infamous US surveillance program Prism -- probably one of the biggest leak scandals in the history of espionage. Snowden didn't have to reveal the fact that he is the whistleblower behind the story. But he decided to out himself voluntarily in a 12-minute video interview that the/Guardian/ posted on its website on Sunday night. Snowden puts a moral spin on his protest against state data surveillance: "I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things," says the 29-year-old former CIA technical assistant who was last employed by the defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton. "I don't want to live in a world where there's no privacy and therefore no room for intellectual exploration and creativity," he continues. But for that, it may already be too late. The debate that Snowden hoped to initiate has revealed that the US's virtual surveillance network is nearly all-encompassing -- and that citizens are powerless against it. "Welcome to the future," writes Ross Douthat in the /New York Times/. "Just make sure you don't have anything to hide." *A Historical Coup in * *Hawaii* Snowden, too, fears this future. The US government, he says, "are intent on making every conversation and every form of behavior in the world known to them." Snowden himself was once a cog in the gears of the intelligence apparatus. After a short stint in the US Army, he began his career in the clandestine National Security Agency (NSA), then moved to the CIA. That's where he first began to have doubts. "I realized that I was part of something that was doing far more harm than good," he says. In 2009, Snowden entered the private sector and ended up at Booz Allen Hamilton, a billion-dollar company with close ties to American espionage circles. His most recent job, as the company confirmed with noticeable consternation, was as an IT contract worker at an NSA facility in Hawaii. And that's where he made his historical coup. Snowden copied documents exposing two gigantic secret NSA programs -- comprising massive surveillance of telephone and internet communications -- and leaked them to the /Guardian /and/Washington Post/. He then asked his employers for a few weeks off and flew to Hong Kong. He didn't even say anything definite about what was going on to his girlfriend. *Obama's PR Problem* Snowden has had "a very comfortable life," with an annual salary of $200,000 and a house in Hawaii. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that," he says, "because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building." What is he facing now? Extradition, abduction, litigation: "All my options are bad," he says. Snowden told the /Washington Post/ on Sunday that he is seeking "asylum from any countries that believe in free speech and oppose the victimization of global privacy." "I do not expect to see home again," he told the /Guardian/. Several times, he mentioned WikiLeaks informant Bradley Manning, who is now facing a military tribunal in one of several cases in which the administration of President Barack Obama has taken a hard line against whistleblowers. Already Mike Rogers, a Republican congressman who serves as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has called for a criminal investigation. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein seconded the call and suggested congressional hearings as well. The response from the US intelligence community itself was kept to a dry statement: "The matter has been referred to the Department of Justice," a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said on Sunday. Obama now faces a huge public relations problem. Wasn't it he who said that he welcomed the debate on government spying? And yet now he has decided to pursue the very man who triggered this debate. One thing is certain: Snowden is sought after -- by the secret services, by the courts, by journalists. Whether hero or villain, writes Garance Franke-Ruta in the /Atlantic/, there is one thing the privacy-rights activist seems not to have fully considered: "He is about to become one of the most highly-scrutinized public figures in the world." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image-506355-breitwandaufmacher-jthe.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 26429 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: but_foto_en_2_big.png Type: image/png Size: 1952 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 11:47:50 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:47:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) How do you keep the natives from getting restless? Message-ID: <51B5F526.5040904@gmail.com> David Cameron Says GCHQ Operates 'Within The Law', Following Prism Revelations *The Huffington Post UK* | By Ned Simons Posted: 10/06/2013 12:14 BST | Updated: 10/06/2013 12:14 David Cameron has said British intelligence agencies operate "within a legal framework", as MPs prepare to grill William Hague on GCHQ's involvement with the American Prism internet surveillance system. "I think it is right that we have well-organised, well-funded intelligence services to help keep us safe," the prime minister said on Monday morning. "But let me be absolutely clear. They are intelligence services that operate within the law, within a law that we have laid down, and they are also subject to proper scrutiny by the intelligence and security committee (ISC) in the House of Commons." The foreign secretary, who is due to make a statement on the allegations in the Commons later, has said the law-abiding British public had "nothing to fear" from the work of GCHQ. However MPs are likely to press Hague on whether the intelligence service has always abided by the legal framework. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the chairman of the ISC, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that GCHQ would have needed to ask ministers before requesting information on British citizens' internet activity from the United States. "The law is actually quite clear: if the British intelligence agencies are seeking to know the content of emails by people living in the UK, then they actually have to get lawful authority. Normally that means ministerial authority," he said. "That applies equally whether they are going to do the intercept themselves or whether they are going to ask somebody else to do it on their behalf." The whistleblower who exposed the programme has condemned the US government's attempts "to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberty". Details about the programme, and GCHQ's links to it, emerged in The Guardian newspaper following a leak by a former technical worker at the CIA and National Security Agency (NSA). Edward Snowden, 29, an American IT administrator for the defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, revealed his identity at his own request, the newspaper said. Snowden, who fled to Hong Kong, said: "I can't allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties. My sole motive is to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them." Prism is said to give the NSA and FBI easy access to the systems of nine of the world's top internet companies, including Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo and Skype. The row crossed the Atlantic after documents emerged suggesting British eavesdropping agency GCHQ had access to the system since at least June 2010. On Monday Downing Street said the UK has "exceptional" intelligence sharing with the US but said it would not comment on specific trans-atlantic conversations that may or may not have happened in relation to Prism. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 12:40:43 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 18:40:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130610184043.5738b5e0@quill.bollow.ch> I'd like to try to rephrase the question: Have there been public comments about PRISM from the community of highly respected insiders of the core technical institutions of the Internet such as ICANN, the RIRs, IAB, and/or from ISOC staff? Greetings, Norbert ** Acronyms ICANN=Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers RIR=Regional Internet Registry IAB=Internet Architecture Board ISOC=Internet Society Am Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:32:12 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > You broke your existing record here, parminder > > You do like to claim arbitration of who is, and who isn't, part of > civil society, and use it to try and exclude the technical community > from civil society on a wide variety of (mostly flimsy) grounds. > > Now you're trying to redefine "technical community" and exclude poor > old Lauren from it? > > Not done. Really. > > And is Schneier not part of the technical community either? > > --srs (iPad) > > On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:27, parminder wrote: > > > > > Carlos > > > > Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even > > suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose > > excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term > > 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term > > 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those > > who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet > > resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, > > Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical > > community' in that sense... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his > >> acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or > >> accept such intrusions... Take a look: > >> > >> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html > >> > >> []s fraternos > >> > >> --c.a. > >> > >> On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >>> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. > >>> > >>> M -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:46:55 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:46:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B5F8C9.1080803@bluewin.ch> References: <51B5F8C9.1080803@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: <51B602FF.8060107@gmail.com> [Feinstein is "open" to hearings but prosecute Snowden!] June 9, 2013, 1:13 pm Feinstein 'Open' to Hearings on Surveillance Programs By BRIAN KNOWLTON Senator Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a defender of the phone and Internet surveillance programs that have come into public view in recent days, said on Sunday that she would consider holding hearings about them. "I'm open to doing a hearing every month, if that's necessary," she said on the ABC program "This Week." But, she added, "Here's the rub: the instances where this has produced good --- has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all classified, that's what's so hard about this." Ms. Feinstein's remarks came two days after President Obama commented on news reports, based on leaked government documents, that revealed details about the surveillance programs run by the National Security Agency. The president said he welcomed a debate over the right balance between security and privacy. Other lawmakers who appeared on the Sunday talk shows were largely supportive of the surveillance programs, often outspokenly so. Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said he was not bothered by the surveillance. He said on the CNN program "State of the Union" that the threat of terrorism was growing steadily amid turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa, but that further Congressional and executive review of the programs was "entirely appropriate." But Senator Mark Udall of Colorado, for years a vocal critic of the government's electronic surveillance programs, said he was not convinced that a program to collect huge amounts of information about Americans' phone calls had led to the foiling of any terrorism plots. He also called for a renewed debate over the Patriot Act, which authorizes much of the data collection. Mr. Udall, a Democrat and a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, appeared to be distinguishing the results of that program --- which uses "metadata" associated with phone calls, including numbers called and the duration of conversations --- from those of the newly revealed Prism program, which analyzes data collected from foreigners who use Internet services like Facebook and Skype. Several officials have said Prism has been effective. "It's unclear to me that we've developed any intelligence through the metadata program that has led to the disruption of plots that we couldn't have developed through other data and other intelligence," Mr. Udall said on the CNN program "State of the Union." Representative Mike Rogers, a Michigan Republican who is the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, spoke with barely disguised anger about Glenn Greenwald, whose articles in the newspaper The Guardian last week described the surveillance programs. He added: "The National Security Agency does not listen to Americans' phone calls, and it is not reading Americans' e-mails. None of these programs allow that." Mr. Greenwald "says that he's got it all and now is an expert on the program," Mr. Rogers said on the ABC program "This Week." "He doesn't have a clue how this thing works. Neither did the person who released just enough information to literally be dangerous." On Sunday, The Guardian identified the leaker as Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old technical assistant who has worked at the National Security Agency for the last four years as an employee for various defense contractors. He most recently worked for Booz Allen Hamilton, according to the newspaper, which said Mr. Snowden asked to be identified after being cited anonymously in earlier reports. Before Mr. Snowden was identified, Mr. Rogers said of the leaker: "I absolutely think they should be prosecuted." Ms. Feinstein, Democrat of California, said she agreed. One lawmaker, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, called the surveillance programs unconstitutional and said he would organize a class-action lawsuit against the government through Internet and phone companies. "If we get 10 million Americans saying we don't want our phone records looked at, then somebody will wake up and say things will change in Washington," he said on "Fox News Sunday." Ms. Feinstein cited two declassified cases in which electronic surveillance data had been used against terrorism suspects, in one case before a plot was carried out: that of David C. Headley, an American who scouted targets in Mumbai, India, in preparation for a deadly attack there, and that of Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan immigrant who pleaded guilty to plotting to set off backpacks full of explosives in the New York subway. The Mumbai attack killed more than 160 people; the subway attack was foiled. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 12:59:45 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:59:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <20130610184043.5738b5e0@quill.bollow.ch> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <20130610184043.5738b5e0@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I'd also like to try to reframe the question: Why would you expect one? You might get one from ISOC, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the others, they have their hands full already with core business. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'd like to try to rephrase the question: > > Have there been public comments about PRISM from the community of > highly respected insiders of the core technical institutions of > the Internet such as ICANN, the RIRs, IAB, and/or from ISOC staff? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > ** Acronyms > ICANN=Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > RIR=Regional Internet Registry > IAB=Internet Architecture Board > ISOC=Internet Society > > > > Am Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:32:12 +0530 > schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > >> You broke your existing record here, parminder >> >> You do like to claim arbitration of who is, and who isn't, part of >> civil society, and use it to try and exclude the technical community >> from civil society on a wide variety of (mostly flimsy) grounds. >> >> Now you're trying to redefine "technical community" and exclude poor >> old Lauren from it? >> >> Not done. Really. >> >> And is Schneier not part of the technical community either? >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 10-Jun-2013, at 19:27, parminder wrote: >> >> > >> > Carlos >> > >> > Since Lauren often shows a very derisive attitude to ICANN and even >> > suggests that it may not at all be serving any useful purpose >> > excludes him from the specific technical meaning in which the term >> > 'technical community' is used in the IG space. With the term >> > 'technical community' one seems to now a days mean just those >> > who are actively engaged in management of critical Internet >> > resources in some way (basically the extended ICANN system). So, >> > Lauren's can hardly be taken to be a statement from the 'technical >> > community' in that sense... >> > >> > parminder >> > >> > >> > >> > On Monday 10 June 2013 06:59 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> I've seen this statement by Lauren Weinstein, in which he says his >> >> acquaitances in the technical community would never condone or >> >> accept such intrusions... Take a look: >> >> >> >> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001043.html >> >> >> >> []s fraternos >> >> >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> On 06/10/2013 10:19 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>> I've been watching but haven't seen any as yet. >> >>> >> >>> M > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Mon Jun 10 13:01:04 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 17:01:04 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B602FF.8060107@gmail.com> Message-ID: >But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has produced >good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all >classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.² That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the good things that come out of this be done if there is better oversight? I think they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd like to hear why they could not work with better oversight. So far I have not heard any arguments that convince me that the same results could not be achieved if there was better oversight. I am not necessarily against governments getting this data but there has to be oversight to protect against abuses and it needs to be publicly disclosed what data they are collecting and how it is collected. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 13:05:08 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:05:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] Canadian phone and Internet surveillance program revealed In-Reply-To: <8449FA29-329D-4B9A-BD0D-94608FA48A2A@nadim.cc> References: <8449FA29-329D-4B9A-BD0D-94608FA48A2A@nadim.cc> Message-ID: <08c501ce65fc$af211d30$0d635790$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Nadim Kobeissi Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:49 AM To: liberationtech Subject: [liberationtech] Canadian phone and Internet surveillance program revealed Some news in Canada similar to the NSA revelations in the US: Defence Minister Peter MacKay approved a secret electronic eavesdropping program that scours global telephone records and Internet data trails - including those of Canadians - for patterns of suspicious activity. Mr. MacKay signed a ministerial directive formally renewing the government's "metadata" surveillance program on Nov. 21, 2011, according to records obtained by The Globe and Mail. The program had been placed on a lengthy hiatus, according to the documents, after a federal watchdog agency raised concerns that it could lead to warrantless surveillance of Canadians. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/data-collection-program-got-gre en-light-from-mackay-in-2011/article12444909/ NK -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 13:19:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 13:19:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <08e601ce65fe$b7c54360$274fca20$@gmail.com> Sorry, I asked for statements (and not of course, unreaslistically, a single statement) concerning the ethical/policy implications of PRISM and not for technical explications or "trust me/us" statements. I would have thought that ISOC at least, would have made a statement on what has to be the most significant single set of public policy concerns that have arisen since the beginning of the Internet and what is probably a quite fundamental inflection point for how the Internet will develop/be allowed to develop/be directed to develop, technically and otherwise into the future. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kerry Brown Subject: Re: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario. As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. I agree wholeheartedly! As I said before, it is doubtful there is a "technical community" rep who can meaningfully make a statement on behalf of the tens/hundreds of thousands of people who can be said to be "T&A", despite MG wanting a statement. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 10 13:39:39 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 19:39:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on the intervention at HRC Message-ID: <20130610193939.29d40cff@quill.bollow.ch> From a posting by Deborah Brown on the IRP and BestBits mailing lists... Greetings, Norbert --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- A quick update here: - The intervention was made this afternoon at the HRC by APC and Reporters Without Borders (through HRW, who was physically present in Geneva and generously helped out). I've attached the shorter version that Therese from HRW actually delivered, but please note in any communication that officially it was APC and RSF that delivered the statement, not HRW. In the actual intervention, Therese noted that the statement was on behalf of over 30 organizations from all over the world, which was the count at the time of the intervention. - The longer version of the statement (the one that is posted on Best Bits) is posted on the HRC extranet here: https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/APC_32.pdf(username: hrc extranet/password: 1session) You should all have PDF of the final document that Anriette circulated a few hours ago. - For those wishing to see the webcast, it should be archived later today or tomorrow. It should be labeled something along the lines of "23rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council (27 May - 14 June 2013) 15h00-: General debate on item 8 – Vienna Declaration of Action" somewhere on this page: http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/23rd-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-27-may-14-june-2013/2178978643001/ - Tunisia delivered a cross-regional statement on behalf of a broad group of governments on the internet and human rights. The core group organizing this statement was led by Sweden, includes Brazil, Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and USA. The statement is good, but does not reflect the recent developments on State surveillance at all. Perhaps we can use the statement in further advocacy. Here's the cross regional statement https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/Tunisia_32.pdf(same password as before) and I've also drafted it in drop box: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j3fj55tyt6fvout/HRCcrossregionalstatementonInternet%26HR.pdf I think that's all for now. Looking forward to continuing this dialogue on surveillance on the Internet and next steps. Warm regards, Deborah {long message trail deleted here -- nb} -- Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FOR THERESE_Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final_updated.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 57652 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 14:33:07 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:33:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Riaz, My response was intended to speak to Kerry's comment: .... We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. "They" are real experts at divide and rule; if "we" allow ourselves to be divided, we will be ruled for sure. You quote from Martin Niemoller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller In the context of your reply I find this a little strange, because I have always understood Niemoller's words to be one of the great human appeals to unity and solidarity and responsibility to one's fellow human beings. Best wishes Deirdre On 10 June 2013 12:29, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > It is Sisyphean task. > > But please let us avoid revisionism. We need to test the veracity and > politics of colleagues on this list and see if they have been justified in > taking the positions they do. > > Cream rises to the top, but crap also floats unfortunately. So let us not > be too hasty in calls for unity. The wheat needs to be separated from the > chaff. After all nothing like reality or evidence to do this job. After > all, you all are anti-American by doing this by some definitions of the > term on this list. And let us not forget that the people pushing these > views have had inordinate play on this list so they have to reap what they > have sown, and be graded by their perspicacity. On this issue in this > space, slow is better. > > > First they came for the socialists > , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. > > Then they came for the trade unionists > , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Jews , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. > > Then they came for me, > and there was no one left to speak for me. > > > > On 2013/06/10 06:50 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show fractures within > the civil society group. > Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil society". > If this means anything at all it means that we hold some values in common. > If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we might even > be able to get it to the top of the hill without its rolling down and > squashing us. > Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this may not be > the best image to use in the context. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus > Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep on > struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus > Deirdre > > > On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown wrote: > >> I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does >> provide a plausible technical scenario. >> >> As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. >> We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their >> fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce >> every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we >> should be seeking unification and consensus. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 15:42:36 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 22:42:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B62C2C.9050402@gmail.com> To be clear: The (or one of the) Third World analytics regarding legitimacy and human rights has been confirmed by this incident. *There is nothing new *in terms of our argumentation - it merely confirms our worst fears. The truth is not improved by overstatement. The ONLY thing, from this perspective is that, it cannot be ignored any longer nor can we pretend that it does not exist (I am sure lots will try). The baton has passed to those without sympathy for the issues (like legitimacy - but not only that) and values implicit in that world view - as evidenced by their politics (of which this list archive is testament). The matter cannot be ignored or as easily denied (fudging possible of course) with 'effortless superiority'. For me (hence Niemoller), to posit the possibility of work together is to misrecognize the politics of the IGC and its civil society reps (and perhaps the MAG too) some of whom have an active history of limiting or forestalling 'third world' or third world 'type' issues. The strategy of divide and rule has moved a lot further. It is now fragment and dominate. Is legitimacy in internet governance even an issue? What gives the US the right? This is not just an American privacy or freedom of expression issue, it is a legitimacy issue. So let us not be presumptuous because some people treat values like reeds that bend in the wind but snap back to hit you in the face. The power relations on this issue has not changed, ours is/was a mere moral democratic argument. If there is to be unity, then it must be principled. And if there are practical suggestions on how to deal with this, we will engage as we have done in the past. But we are not nitpicking around false analytics that seek to save face on this matter, as the heirs of single rooting now find themselves obliged to do when provoked. This matter must be treated with the seriousness it deserves, otherwise we do ourselves a disservice. Is the IGC ready for such unity? I should hope so, but such idealism is tempered by realism. But as always, happy to engage and also to be surprised. On 2013/06/10 09:33 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Riaz, > My response was intended to speak to Kerry's comment: > > > .... We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people > have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. > Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only > causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. > > "They" are real experts at divide and rule; if "we" allow ourselves to > be divided, we will be ruled for sure. > > You quote from Martin Niemoller > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller > In the context of your reply I find this a little strange, because I > have always understood Niemoller's words to be one of the great human > appeals to unity and solidarity and responsibility to one's fellow > human beings. > > Best wishes > Deirdre > > > > > On 10 June 2013 12:29, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > It is Sisyphean task. > > But please let us avoid revisionism. We need to test the veracity > and politics of colleagues on this list and see if they have been > justified in taking the positions they do. > > Cream rises to the top, but crap also floats unfortunately. So let > us not be too hasty in calls for unity. The wheat needs to be > separated from the chaff. After all nothing like reality or > evidence to do this job. After all, you all are anti-American by > doing this by some definitions of the term on this list. And let > us not forget that the people pushing these views have had > inordinate play on this list so they have to reap what they have > sown, and be graded by their perspicacity. On this issue in this > space, slow is better. > > > First they came for the socialists > , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. > > Then they came for the trade unionists > , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. > > Then they came for the Jews , > and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. > > Then they came for me, > and there was no one left to speak for me. > > > > On 2013/06/10 06:50 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show >> fractures within the civil society group. >> Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil >> society". If this means anything at all it means that we hold >> some values in common. >> If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we >> might even be able to get it to the top of the hill without its >> rolling down and squashing us. >> Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this >> may not be the best image to use in the context. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus >> Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep >> on struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown > > wrote: >> >> I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but >> it does provide a plausible technical scenario. >> >> As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them >> conversations. We are a community that is made up of >> communities. Many people have their fingers in many >> communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce >> every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes >> division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 16:00:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:30:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> More worryingly, I have found neimoller's great words often sadly cheapened by dragging them into any debate at all about a government's actions. Possibly in effect comparing said government to the evil regime that targeted him and everybody else in his poem? --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 0:03, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Dear Riaz, > My response was intended to speak to Kerry's comment: > > .... We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. > > "They" are real experts at divide and rule; if "we" allow ourselves to be divided, we will be ruled for sure. > > You quote from Martin Niemoller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller > In the context of your reply I find this a little strange, because I have always understood Niemoller's words to be one of the great human appeals to unity and solidarity and responsibility to one's fellow human beings. > > Best wishes > Deirdre > > > > > On 10 June 2013 12:29, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> It is Sisyphean task. >> >> But please let us avoid revisionism. We need to test the veracity and politics of colleagues on this list and see if they have been justified in taking the positions they do. >> >> Cream rises to the top, but crap also floats unfortunately. So let us not be too hasty in calls for unity. The wheat needs to be separated from the chaff. After all nothing like reality or evidence to do this job. After all, you all are anti-American by doing this by some definitions of the term on this list. And let us not forget that the people pushing these views have had inordinate play on this list so they have to reap what they have sown, and be graded by their perspicacity. On this issue in this space, slow is better. >> >> >> First they came for the socialists, >> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist. >> >> Then they came for the trade unionists, >> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. >> >> Then they came for the Jews, >> and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. >> >> Then they came for me, >> and there was no one left to speak for me. >> >> >> >> On 2013/06/10 06:50 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> From a practical point of view this is a bad time to show fractures within the civil society group. >>> Many (most??) of us have formally identified ourselves as "civil society". If this means anything at all it means that we hold some values in common. >>> If we all push together at the same boulder - who knows? - we might even be able to get it to the top of the hill without its rolling down and squashing us. >>> Although since stone-rolling was the punishment for deceit this may not be the best image to use in the context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisyphus >>> Or perhaps like Camus we "must imagine Sisyphus happy" and keep on struggling.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus >>> Deirdre >>> >>> >>> On 10 June 2013 10:37, Kerry Brown wrote: >>>> I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario. >>>> >>>> As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. >>>> >>>> Kerry Brown >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 16:39:35 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 16:39:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > More worryingly, I have found neimoller's great words often sadly > cheapened by dragging them into any debate at all about a government's > actions. Possibly in effect comparing said government to the evil regime > that targeted him and everybody else in his poem? > What I find worrying is that those of us who have always been concerned about giving gov'ts too much power in IG arenas are now pilloried for blocking attempts at giving gov't too much power when it is in fact a gov't that is responsible for this fiasco (not the T&A folks, nor biz folks who are also pilloried). Kafkaesque!! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Mon Jun 10 17:38:49 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 00:38:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51B64769.1040304@gmail.com> McTim /et al/ On Kafka we can always agree :) But we differ on first principles. As stated in the thread on internationalisation (of yours and Milton's), we disagree at the level of first principles. The freedom/liberty/voluntrism implicit in those articulations is one I characterised of a particular kind, as Fischer I think wrote - free to choose; which I did not share. The repost at that time from more heterodox views appended, free to loose. It is a particular type of voluntrism - where everyone is free to sleep under bridges, rich or poor. Kinda like Marie Antoinette who allegedly said, why don't they eat cake. I doubt she said it because of her type of upbringing as later historians argue as she was brought up with strict noblesse oblige and was active in caring for the destitute despite her privileges. For purposes of taking matters forward, if constructive action/s are possible in this vein, perhaps you could clarify your views on internationalisation, multistakeholderism (equity in representation of estates, public interest, commercial sector, revolving door appointed 'regulators'), legitimacy of governance of CIR including ICANN. You have been vocal on this so perhaps you do not want to go through these, but I do think it may dispel any misapprehensions of others on your views some critiques/dialogues of ours may have caused. Then there is the procedural aspects of political practice (not right or wrong, just about processes; kinda yes/no) regarding the relevance of IGC list discussion on - whether there is a common set of issues between the technical and regulatory/public interest; - the US ecosystem of laws and institutions as a subject of debate for the Global Internet; - the role and practice of corporations in internet governance; procedures for selection of and composition of technical team members; - whether it is a valid democratic option to opt not to deal with ICANN and related institutions to object to their illegitimacy, whether (legitimate) vested interests have the same standing as public interests, and if the same standards of universal human rights and democratic norms should apply to all countries. Since you feel pilloried, and I have my notes, this may clarify it for others - far be it for me to characterise your views at this point. As you know, chopping the head off of the many hydra that is Internet Governance and replacing it with a legitimate one while retaining all other arrangements (for incremental change) is valid for discussion as is the Parminder/ IT4Change proposals (not speaking for them, just a reference). This is no less idealistic than your utopian/conception of government '/free/' internet governance (italics because the state is still called upon to regulate and enforce property rights - the /a priori/ contradiction at the heart of many libertarian views, just fyi :). Riaz On 2013/06/10 11:39 PM, McTim wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > > wrote: > > More worryingly, I have found neimoller's great words often sadly > cheapened by dragging them into any debate at all about a > government's actions. Possibly in effect comparing said > government to the evil regime that targeted him and everybody else > in his poem? > > > > What I find worrying is that those of us who have always been > concerned about giving gov'ts too much power in IG arenas are now > pilloried for blocking attempts at giving gov't too much power when it > is in fact a gov't that is responsible for this fiasco (not the T&A > folks, nor biz folks who are also pilloried). > > Kafkaesque!! > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 10 21:56:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:26:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: <51B64769.1040304@gmail.com> References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> <51B64769.1040304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <036AB05C-0150-4152-9A59-6D4FC10A7747@hserus.net> Riaz, at least McTim knows and says that his government free governance is utopian. And he doesn't tilt at that one single windmill ad nauseam, or even more than occasionally, for which I thank god. His contributions to the list range rather farther afield, rather than restricting himself to turgid prose on much the same topic that doesn't appear to have any kind of consensus that I have seen. --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 3:08, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > McTim et al > > On Kafka we can always agree :) > > But we differ on first principles. As stated in the thread on internationalisation (of yours and Milton's), we disagree at the level of first principles. The freedom/liberty/voluntrism implicit in those articulations is one I characterised of a particular kind, as Fischer I think wrote - free to choose; which I did not share. The repost at that time from more heterodox views appended, free to loose. It is a particular type of voluntrism - where everyone is free to sleep under bridges, rich or poor. Kinda like Marie Antoinette who allegedly said, why don't they eat cake. I doubt she said it because of her type of upbringing as later historians argue as she was brought up with strict noblesse oblige and was active in caring for the destitute despite her privileges. > > For purposes of taking matters forward, if constructive action/s are possible in this vein, perhaps you could clarify your views on internationalisation, multistakeholderism (equity in representation of estates, public interest, commercial sector, revolving door appointed 'regulators'), legitimacy of governance of CIR including ICANN. You have been vocal on this so perhaps you do not want to go through these, but I do think it may dispel any misapprehensions of others on your views some critiques/dialogues of ours may have caused. > > Then there is the procedural aspects of political practice (not right or wrong, just about processes; kinda yes/no) regarding the relevance of IGC list discussion on - whether there is a common set of issues between the technical and regulatory/public interest; - the US ecosystem of laws and institutions as a subject of debate for the Global Internet; - the role and practice of corporations in internet governance; procedures for selection of and composition of technical team members; - whether it is a valid democratic option to opt not to deal with ICANN and related institutions to object to their illegitimacy, whether (legitimate) vested interests have the same standing as public interests, and if the same standards of universal human rights and democratic norms should apply to all countries. > > Since you feel pilloried, and I have my notes, this may clarify it for others - far be it for me to characterise your views at this point. As you know, chopping the head off of the many hydra that is Internet Governance and replacing it with a legitimate one while retaining all other arrangements (for incremental change) is valid for discussion as is the Parminder/ IT4Change proposals (not speaking for them, just a reference). This is no less idealistic than your utopian/conception of government 'free' internet governance (italics because the state is still called upon to regulate and enforce property rights - the a priori contradiction at the heart of many libertarian views, just fyi :). > > Riaz > > On 2013/06/10 11:39 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >>> More worryingly, I have found neimoller's great words often sadly cheapened by dragging them into any debate at all about a government's actions. Possibly in effect comparing said government to the evil regime that targeted him and everybody else in his poem? >> >> >> What I find worrying is that those of us who have always been concerned about giving gov'ts too much power in IG arenas are now pilloried for blocking attempts at giving gov't too much power when it is in fact a gov't that is responsible for this fiasco (not the T&A folks, nor biz folks who are also pilloried). >> >> Kafkaesque!! >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Jun 10 21:58:12 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 01:58:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Edward Snowden missing, presumed on the run. In-Reply-To: <349E207F-3F54-47F5-9D7F-FC1EA4149AB0@farber.net> References: <51B64F7C.7020404@virtadpt.net>,<349E207F-3F54-47F5-9D7F-FC1EA4149AB0@farber.net> Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B2235BD@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Curiouser and curiouser. Five days ago the NSA leaks start to be published in the Guardian; on Saturday Obama and Xi Jinping are talking cybersecurity in US; on Sunday Snowden introduces himself from Hong Kong. And now....? Either I'm paranoid; China's seriously flexing cybermuscles tit for tat for the Mandiant etc report on the People's Liberation Army online activities from the spring; or Snowden already has a great publicist and timed his whistle-blowing to perfection. (And relevance to Internet governance: well, if I have to explain that... ) Of course I only know what I read online, so take my 2 cents commentary for what it's worth. Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:22 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] Edward Snowden missing, presumed on the run. Begin forwarded message: From: The Doctor Subject: Edward Snowden missing, presumed on the run. Date: June 10, 2013 6:13:16 PM EDT To: dave at farber.net Reply-To: drwho at virtadpt.net For IP if you wish: Edward Snowden, NSA surveillance whistleblower, is missing from his hotel in Hong Kong, and is presumed to be on the run. http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snowden-gone-hong-kong-hotel-20130610,0,6912122.story - -- The Doctor [412/724/301/703] [ZS] Developer, Project Byzantium: http://project-byzantium.org/ PGP: 0x807B17C1 / 7960 1CDC 85C9 0B63 8D9F DD89 3BD8 FF2B 807B 17C1 WWW: https://drwho.virtadpt.net/ "Can't you appreciate a good running gag?!" ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20130610192245:A5C776BE-D224-11E2-978D-BD4AFEB8F9FD Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Jun 10 23:10:15 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:10:15 +0800 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> <51B5FEFC.7000803@gmail.com> <5B7BFC93-EC27-4A40-92EB-E731C099715D@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51B69517.3020806@ciroap.org> On 11/06/13 04:39, McTim wrote: > What I find worrying is that those of us who have always been > concerned about giving gov'ts too much power in IG arenas are now > pilloried for blocking attempts at giving gov't too much power when it > is in fact a gov't that is responsible for this fiasco (not the T&A > folks, nor biz folks who are also pilloried). Promoting the participation of governments in *global* multi-stakeholder Internet governance arenas is all about *limiting* the ability to abuse their power domestically or in narrower fora. So there is no inconsistency here. Imagine if we didn't have the UDHR as a yardstick against which to measure the NSA's behaviour, but only the US Constitution. Hence the need to go global. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 *Your rights, our mission – download CI's Strategy 2015:* http://consint.info/RightsMission @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 02:59:53 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:59:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> Brown Here we agree. There needs to be better oversight. But this is a truism. How will it help Africans, Latino's and Asians? This is not just an American issue. Can we please include the third world, and Sen. Feinstein is an illegal warmonger just like Bush - we cannot share any confidence in her and I am surprised that this has happened under her watch and she is still respected. See, we simply do not share your confidence. I hate to point it out, but this is precisely the reason why national solutions do not suffice. I would recommend a broader world view, but we disagree on starting points, and the explicit/implicit American Exceptionalism of this point needs to be recognised as unacceptable for its lack of cosmopolitanism. What about the privacy and other rights of millions of people who have no stake in US oversight or democracy? Why are American's more equal than others on the internet in terms of activating their rights? Apologies, but the perspective is too American centric. As an outsider, what should be of concern is if American people were lied to about the Iraq war, about their rights being protected (although the US technically has been under a state of emergency since 2001 - a state that needs to be proportionate to the circumstances, hence no posse comitas in the terrible tragedy that was Boston recently) after PATRIOT Act (just look at some of the horrible discussions on this to see what I am talking about) which is now confirmed to have been abused. Depending on the access these committees had to info will determine their complicity. This is only reasonable. But BigMedia in US and Uk are able to better manipulate political opinion without censorship - something that would make dictatorial regimes green with envy. And the problem is they cannot tell you how well the programme worked. Just like they have to give the bankers money to save your 401k and pensions... this is not liberty, or choice, this is a a one sided involuntary bargain where ordinary folk pick up the costs. We had told those who were playing rough to play as they must but be more sophisticated. They did not listen and were confident in their power (power they still have and which is institutionalised because I suspect the MAG will not tolerate legitimacy discussions except in the most round about way). Now they must stand by and justify their positions. In other words, this is not the time for civil society unity (as I said, that is to blindly misread the politics of IGC). Now is the time for principled unity, not hiding amongst the vulnerable. In short, please do not presume on my (or some third worldist) political generosity at this time when the context has been that such generosity is like pearls to swine.... in some of the discussions I even had to beg for 'reason' even conceding that perhaps 'slaves make bad masters'... to NO AVAIL. Welcome to IGC. Nice if you hang out with the powerful, treacherous if you do not. I am genuinely sorry, you are all Afghans now... On 2013/06/10 08:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has produced >> good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all >> classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.² > That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the good > things that come out of this be done if there is better oversight? I think > they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd like to hear why they > could not work with better oversight. So far I have not heard any > arguments that convince me that the same results could not be achieved if > there was better oversight. I am not necessarily against governments > getting this data but there has to be oversight to protect against abuses > and it needs to be publicly disclosed what data they are collecting and > how it is collected. > > Kerry Brown > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 03:04:51 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:34:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, unless you are either royalty, or actually speaking for far more than yourself when you say "africans, asians and latinos", please refrain from using "we". I for example am asian, and can confirm that you don't speak for me. --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 12:29, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Brown > > Here we agree. There needs to be better oversight. But this is a truism. > > How will it help Africans, Latino's and Asians? This is not just an American issue. Can we please include the third world, and Sen. Feinstein is an illegal warmonger just like Bush - we cannot share any confidence in her and I am surprised that this has happened under her watch and she is still respected. > > See, we simply do not share your confidence. I hate to point it out, but this is precisely the reason why national solutions do not suffice. > > I would recommend a broader world view, but we disagree on starting points, and the explicit/implicit American Exceptionalism of this point needs to be recognised as unacceptable for its lack of cosmopolitanism. What about the privacy and other rights of millions of people who have no stake in US oversight or democracy? Why are American's more equal than others on the internet in terms of activating their rights? > > Apologies, but the perspective is too American centric. As an outsider, what should be of concern is if American people were lied to about the Iraq war, about their rights being protected (although the US technically has been under a state of emergency since 2001 - a state that needs to be proportionate to the circumstances, hence no posse comitas in the terrible tragedy that was Boston recently) after PATRIOT Act (just look at some of the horrible discussions on this to see what I am talking about) which is now confirmed to have been abused. Depending on the access these committees had to info will determine their complicity. This is only reasonable. But BigMedia in US and Uk are able to better manipulate political opinion without censorship - something that would make dictatorial regimes green with envy. > > And the problem is they cannot tell you how well the programme worked. Just like they have to give the bankers money to save your 401k and pensions... this is not liberty, or choice, this is a a one sided involuntary bargain where ordinary folk pick up the costs. > > We had told those who were playing rough to play as they must but be more sophisticated. They did not listen and were confident in their power (power they still have and which is institutionalised because I suspect the MAG will not tolerate legitimacy discussions except in the most round about way). Now they must stand by and justify their positions. In other words, this is not the time for civil society unity (as I said, that is to blindly misread the politics of IGC). Now is the time for principled unity, not hiding amongst the vulnerable. > > In short, please do not presume on my (or some third worldist) political generosity at this time when the context has been that such generosity is like pearls to swine.... in some of the discussions I even had to beg for 'reason' even conceding that perhaps 'slaves make bad masters'... to NO AVAIL. Welcome to IGC. Nice if you hang out with the powerful, treacherous if you do not. > > I am genuinely sorry, you are all Afghans now... > > > > > On 2013/06/10 08:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >>> But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has produced >>> good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all >>> classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.² >> That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the good >> things that come out of this be done if there is better oversight? I think >> they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd like to hear why they >> could not work with better oversight. So far I have not heard any >> arguments that convince me that the same results could not be achieved if >> there was better oversight. I am not necessarily against governments >> getting this data but there has to be oversight to protect against abuses >> and it needs to be publicly disclosed what data they are collecting and >> how it is collected. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 03:56:22 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:26:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] Have there been any statements re: PRISM from the "technical community" In-Reply-To: References: <076901ce65dd$1dab5ab0$59021010$@gmail.com> <51B5D49F.6030101@cafonso.ca> <51B5DB44.5020407@itforchange.net> <74AD4874-0589-4348-A51E-5E9EB7129400@hserus.net> <51B5E113.6030304@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51B6D826.3070804@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 June 2013 08:07 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I don't know if this counts as the "technical community" but it does provide a plausible technical scenario. > > As an aside I am really getting tired of the us vs. them conversations. We are a community that is made up of communities. Many people have their fingers in many communities. There is a lot of overlap. Trying to reduce every conversation to sides is not useful and only causes division when we should be seeking unification and consensus. It is not about general goodness and oneness of all people - all of which is very well. This is about self identified political factions and actors in the global IG space. A certain organised technical community has vehemently self identified itself as a political actor in the global IG space, and participates in all of its political activities with a remarkably consistent, and one may observe, largely pro-US, political stance. It is the response of this politically organised technical community to the PRISM episode which was sought by Michael.... It is of course not about just any techie making a comment on this issue. BTW, Edward Snowdon himself is a techie, but that means little vis a vis what we understand as the technical community in the political IG space. This particular technical community, for instance, is very vocal about the so called threat of a UN control of the Internet. Obviously then, it is of interest to many to know its views on the US control of the Internet. This political faction - the so called 'technical community' - cannot become selectively political, and then apolitical and non-committal when it suits it, and also selectively 'concrete' and precisely expressive and then suddenly, diffused and uncharacterisably plural, when it suits it..... BTW, the directors' note in the IT for Change's last annual report (2011-12) spoke of "the spectre of a global cyber control room where big business and United States government agents sit together, scrutinising and controlling the minutest details of our world, employing the new global neural system of ICTs." It is almost literally borne out by PRISM revelations...... Apologies for a bit of 'we told you' indulgence here... Remember, the courtesy extends both ways - while the US based big business helps further US's political interests, US government fights globally on big Internet business' behalf for lax privacy laws, low or no intermediary liability (even when it is otherwise justifiable) and in general no regulation of global Internet business.... If we wish we can still remain blind to this patently manifest, by far the, biggest power centre on the Internet, and consequently what should be the most important target for public interest governance of the Internet, and keep exclusively focussing our IG advocacies elsewhere. parminder > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Tue Jun 11 04:07:38 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:07:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? Message-ID: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> Dear all, Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. Is this really the best that this list can do? Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one another, or score points for the public interest? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 11 04:59:54 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:59:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Well said Nick. Anriette On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear all, > > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. > > Is this really the best that this list can do? > > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one another, or score points for the public interest? - -- - ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= =dPgW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Tue Jun 11 05:12:19 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:12:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on the intervention at HRC In-Reply-To: <20130610193939.29d40cff@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130610193939.29d40cff@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51B6E9F3.4000206@apc.org> And here is the version that was read by the Human Rights Watch intern, Therese Arnesen. It was her first time and she did really well. As I have said on other lists.. thanks a lot to all who worked on this and thanks SO much to the Geneva-based CSOs who at incredibly short notice stepped in to help us present it. Also thanks to the HRC system.. considering that in one morning we had to book a speaking slot in an already full agenda (26 NGO speakers were registered for the Agenda item we were applying to) and send a letter that someone else will ready the statement on APC's behalf it is quite amazing that it all worked out. However, it was just a statement, even if a good one. It would be very useful to take these demands and also raise them at regional level with regional human rights bodies. More people can sign on if they want to (good to see several IGC members there already): http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa/ It would also be good if Geneva-based people like Nick Ashton-Hart and others who attend the HRC can alert HRC member state reps to the statement. Anriette On 10/06/2013 19:39, Norbert Bollow wrote: > From a posting by Deborah Brown on the IRP > and BestBits mailing lists... > > Greetings, > Norbert > > --snip----------------------------------------------------------------- > > A quick update here: > > - The intervention was made this afternoon at the HRC by APC and > Reporters Without Borders (through HRW, who was physically present in > Geneva and generously helped out). I've attached the shorter version > that Therese from HRW actually delivered, but please note in any > communication that officially it was APC and RSF that delivered > the statement, not HRW. In the actual intervention, Therese noted > that the statement was on behalf of over 30 organizations from all > over the world, which was the count at the time of the > intervention. > - The longer version of the statement (the one that is posted on Best > Bits) is posted on the HRC extranet here: > https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/APC_32.pdf(username: > hrc extranet/password: 1session) You should all have PDF of the > final document that Anriette circulated a few hours ago. > - For those wishing to see the webcast, it should be archived later > today or tomorrow. It should be labeled something along the lines of > "23rd Regular Session of the Human Rights Council (27 May - 14 > June 2013) 15h00-: General debate on item 8 – Vienna Declaration > of Action" somewhere on this page: > http://webtv.un.org/live-now/watch/23rd-regular-session-of-the-human-rights-council-27-may-14-june-2013/2178978643001/ > - Tunisia delivered a cross-regional statement on behalf of a broad > group of governments on the internet and human rights. The core group > organizing this statement was led by Sweden, includes Brazil, > Nigeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and USA. The statement is good, but does > not reflect the recent developments on State surveillance at all. > Perhaps we can use the statement in further advocacy. Here's the > cross regional statement > https://extranet.ohchr.org/sites/hrc/HRCSessions/RegularSessions/23rdSession/OralStatements/Tunisia_32.pdf(same > password as before) and I've also drafted it in drop box: > https://www.dropbox.com/s/j3fj55tyt6fvout/HRCcrossregionalstatementonInternet%26HR.pdf > > I think that's all for now. Looking forward to continuing this dialogue > on surveillance on the Internet and next steps. > > Warm regards, > Deborah > > {long message trail deleted here -- nb} > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FOR THERESE_Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final_updated.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 57652 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Civil Society Intervention Internet HR Agenda item 8_10062013_Final.pdf Type: application/force-download Size: 55221 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 05:36:32 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:36:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <51B6EFA0.1060204@gmail.com> Please do not mischaracterise the positions. We seek principled unity. If there is scope for action then let us do it - really. What do you propose? Before and now there was enough grounds for shared common values (even if one did not share the Third World analytic) but the issues were irrelevant. Can someone explain the relevance of the topic after all that was done to ensure issues like this were not discussed meaningfully at IGC? This is a global problem, not a North American or rich country one only. Unless there is global approach to this problem we cannot move. There are other avenues where this can be handled and if IGC has confirmed its irrelevance and laggardness then so be it. Let the MAG, IGC and everyone related bask in the glory of what they have created and managed. If there is a principled basis to move forward (i.e. simple confirmation that these issues have global relevance based on universal human rights would suffice) there is no problem at all. But this should be the rule going forward rather than the (parochial US type) exception. It is very simple really... On 2013/06/11 11:07 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear all, > > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there > is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection > to overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; > it seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against > factions. > > Is this really the best that this list can do? > > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the > like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points *against* one > another, or score points *for* the public interest? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 11 05:51:48 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:51:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Update on the intervention at HRC In-Reply-To: <51B6E9F3.4000206@apc.org> References: <20130610193939.29d40cff@quill.bollow.ch> <51B6E9F3.4000206@apc.org> Message-ID: <20130611115148.1be41525@quill.bollow.ch> Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > However, it was just a statement, even if a good one. It would be very > useful to take these demands and also raise them at regional level > with regional human rights bodies. Sounds like a good plan. If wonder whether there is anywhere some kind of beginner's introduction (perhaps ideally some kind of “HOWTO” guide) for engaging with regional human rights bodies? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 06:35:22 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 06:35:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> Nick, Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal agreement on this list concerning the nature of the public interest with respect to the Internet and Internet Governance (or even if there is a public interest with respect to Internet Governance). It has thus proven to be fundamentally impossible to ``do something productive``. Going forward, without some clear response from those who have in the past been either designated or self-designated spokespersons for the `technical community` within the IGC and IGF it would appear similarly impossible to determine whether there is an agreement sufficient to move forward concerning the most recent revelations. That this is the case concerning, as I said earlier, the most significant issue to arise concerning the Internet and it`s ``governance`` since the inception of the Internet is to my mind truly and sadly astonishing. Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:08 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? Dear all, Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. Is this really the best that this list can do? Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one another, or score points for the public interest? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Tue Jun 11 06:44:49 2013 From: matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at (Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at)) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:44:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG: Flash Session on Surveillance Message-ID: [for those coming to EuroDIG in Lisbon next week] Dear all, in light of current events (PRISM and the La Rue report), I'm organizing a last minute Flash at the EURODIG on Human Rights and Internet Surveillance. Since EuroDIG is upon us, I would appreciate your support regarding both speaking commitments and possible speakers. Do you feel like you have something to say on the future of surveillance and its impact on human rights on the Internet? Please get in touch asap. Below and attached you can find enclosed the description of the flash. If you would like to add your thoughts, please write to me. Kind regards Matthias FRIDAY, 21 JUNE 2013 08:00 Flash 7 Human Rights and Internet Surveillance: Standards, Principles and Lines of Action Focal Point: Matthias C. Kettemann Surveillance has never been easier: a sharp increase in stored data, better surveillance and data mining tools, and security-oriented political priorities together threaten privacy, freedom of expression and democratic participation worldwide. In Resolution 20/8 (2012), the Human Rights Council affirmed that "the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression". As UN Special Rapporteur La Rue wrote in his 2013 report, Internet surveillance may not only violate privacy but has serious chilling effects on a range of other human rights. The Flash will look at key questions brought forth both by La Rue's report, reflecting worldwide trends, and by the PRISM revelations. 1) What are the limits to Internet surveillance? 2) What is worse: If the surveillance systems in place are illegal or if they are, in fact, legal under current national legislation? 3) What role and responsibilities do the different actors - states, companies - in Internet surveillance have? What can civil society do? What about existing standards, such as the IRP Charter on Internet Rights and Principles? 4) What lines of action exist: Should the Human Rights Council convene a special session? What role can the High Commissioner for Human Rights play? Which organizations should be activated? Chair: Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann (University of Graz, Austria; IRP Coalition) Speakers: tbc -- Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) Institute of International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria T | +43 316 380 6711 M | +43 676 701 7175 E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | Amazon Authors' Page Twitter | Facebook | Google+ Recent publications: The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013), Grenzen im Völkerrecht (2013, ed.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Jun 11 07:00:20 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:00:20 +0800 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> On 11/06/13 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal agreement > on this list concerning the nature of the public interest with respect > to the Internet and Internet Governance (or even if there is a public > interest with respect to Internet Governance). It has thus proven to > be fundamentally impossible to ``do something productive``. There is some guidance in the IGC Charter about what members are expected to be signing up for when self-asserting their membership of the IGC. The IGC's Vision, for example: The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. This is what distinguishes the IGC from other Internet advocacy groups, and we are all expected to subscribe to it, and to the rest of the Charter, when joining the IGC and when affirming our membership. Notably, it is not apolitical. Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus. Perhaps having reference to this statement when disputes arise could help guide the IGC back onto the rails. It will not be easy for people to be overruled as being "politically incorrect" vis-a-vis the IGC Charter, but maybe that is a possible way out of the IGC's current morass? -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 07:11:16 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:41:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <5D3C2BA4-6147-45B5-816C-D29168F21455@hserus.net> It is quite debatable whether several of the proposals or statements that emanate from the usual rump minority here are anywhere near definable as "public interest". And there, I suspect, is the rub. Entirely besides the political maneuvring, which is another point of friction. --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 16:30, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/06/13 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: >> Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal agreement on this list concerning the nature of the public interest with respect to the Internet and Internet Governance (or even if there is a public interest with respect to Internet Governance). It has thus proven to be fundamentally impossible to ``do something productive``. > > There is some guidance in the IGC Charter about what members are expected to be signing up for when self-asserting their membership of the IGC. The IGC's Vision, for example: > > The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. > > This is what distinguishes the IGC from other Internet advocacy groups, and we are all expected to subscribe to it, and to the rest of the Charter, when joining the IGC and when affirming our membership. > > Notably, it is not apolitical. Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus. > > Perhaps having reference to this statement when disputes arise could help guide the IGC back onto the rails. It will not be easy for people to be overruled as being "politically incorrect" vis-a-vis the IGC Charter, but maybe that is a possible way out of the IGC's current morass? > > -- > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 07:16:32 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:46:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> Message-ID: <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there > is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to > overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it > seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. >> Is this really the best that this list can do? >> >> Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the > like on topical subjects. Sure Nick, we should do a statement too. What about the following. (The initial draft is submitted for Caucus' consideration.) (Nick, BTW I took the initial expression 'horror' from your last email on the subject.) (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU countries. The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. > Would you rather score points against one > another, or score points for the public interest? > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 > zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA > fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ > s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA > uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex > JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= > =dPgW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 07:27:08 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:27:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] Request for Information #Pictographs Message-ID: Dear All, Does anyone on this list or in your organisations know organisations who are doing work on using pictographs for ease of communications along the lines of http://wiki.epfl.ch/easysms If you do, grateful if you could please send me an email offlist. Thank you. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 07:47:23 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:17:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B70E4B.2080507@itforchange.net> On Monday 10 June 2013 10:31 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has produced >> good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is all >> classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.² > That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the good > things that come out of this be done if there is better oversight? I think > they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd like to hear why they > could not work with better oversight. So far I have not heard any > arguments that convince me that the same results could not be achieved if > there was better oversight. I am not necessarily against governments > getting this data but there has to be oversight to protect against abuses > and it needs to be publicly disclosed what data they are collecting and > how it is collected. Kerry The oversight of the US system would never be the same for US citizens and non US citizens... It fact it will always be vastly different. So, not a solution for non US citizens, right! These are some very difficult issues of global governance - put in sharp focus by the inherent globality of the Internet - which we all seem to avoid persistently... parminder > > Kerry Brown > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Tue Jun 11 07:55:13 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:55:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 11 Jun 2013, at 07:00, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Notably, it is not apolitical. Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus. All well and good, but we need to agree of what constitutes the public interest. And it has become apparent that we often do not. We used to agree on some things, like a multi-stakehoder approach, but over the years, even support for that has splintered. I find that discussions on this list, for all their obfuscating venom are indeed about the search for the point of public interest. And we are fundamentally split on that. Some have gone so far as to argue that they hold the key to the public interest because they are A, B or C, and those who disagree with them are T&A infidels who sold out to corporate interests. Someday we may get beyond this episode. In the meantime I expect the impasse will continue. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 11 08:21:08 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:21:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] EuroDIG: Flash Session on Surveillance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A speaker? Someone from the european parliament who has been participating in discussions of new data protection directive -- draft proposals that have been subject to unfortunately very successful lobbying by U.S. govt and business over the past year. Seen the data protection proposals greatly watered down, to the extent that there were concerns the final proposals would possibly weaker than existing 1995 Directive. Hopefully the horrors (tm :-) ) of the past few days have reversed that (question: have they?) Are we now likely to see stronger personal data protections than seemed to be the case just a week ago. Might also ask any panel on cloud computing (is there one?) if PRISM might affect business models. Adam On Jun 11, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Kettemann, Matthias (matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at) wrote: > [for those coming to EuroDIG in Lisbon next week] > > Dear all, > > in light of current events (PRISM and the La Rue report), I'm organizing a last minute Flash at the EURODIG on Human Rights and Internet Surveillance. Since EuroDIG is upon us, I would appreciate your support regarding both speaking commitments and possible speakers. Do you feel like you have something to say on the future of surveillance and its impact on human rights on the Internet? > Please get in touch asap. > > Below and attached you can find enclosed the description of the flash. If you would like to add your thoughts, please write to me. > > Kind regards > Matthias > > > FRIDAY, 21 JUNE 2013 > 08:00 Flash 7 > > Human Rights and Internet Surveillance: Standards, Principles and Lines of Action > > Focal Point: Matthias C. Kettemann > > > Surveillance has never been easier: a sharp increase in stored data, better surveillance and data mining tools, and security-oriented political priorities together threaten privacy, freedom of expression and democratic participation worldwide. > > In Resolution 20/8 (2012), the Human Rights Council affirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression”. As UN Special Rapporteur La Rue wrote in his 2013 report, Internet surveillance may not only violate privacy but has serious chilling effects on a range of other human rights. > > The Flash will look at key questions brought forth both by La Rue’s report, reflecting worldwide trends, and by the PRISM revelations. > > 1) What are the limits to Internet surveillance? > 2) What is worse: If the surveillance systems in place are illegal or if they are, in fact, legal under current national legislation? > 3) What role and responsibilities do the different actors – states, companies – in Internet surveillance have? What can civil society do? What about existing standards, such as the IRP Charter on Internet Rights and Principles? > 4) What lines of action exist: Should the Human Rights Council convene a special session? What role can the High Commissioner for Human Rights play? Which organizations should be activated? > > Chair: Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann (University of Graz, Austria; IRP Coalition) > > Speakers: tbc > > > -- > Dr Matthias C. Kettemann, LLM (Harvard) > Institute of International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria > T | +43 316 380 6711 > M | +43 676 701 7175 > E | matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at > Blog | SSRN | Google Scholar | Amazon Authors' Page > Twitter | Facebook | Google+ > > Recent publications: > The Future of Individuals in International Law (2013), > Grenzen im Völkerrecht (2013, ed.) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:28:55 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:28:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <51B71807.40802@gmail.com> Ouch Avri, but I agree. Impasse it is. I note the extreme double standards on this issue. When it is a matter affecting US citizens we must all move and take heed. When it is a (pre-dated) matter from the Third World voicing similar concerns then it is irrelevant. You mistake the diatribes of the adversaries on this list if you think there is not a position on the public interest. There is a position on the public interest, and it must be technical so that 'experts' in their wisdom can shape the technology and policy for the rest of us. Just because some claim they are 'against' the state does not mean that I am blind to the objective politics that they seek to shape the state/i.governance in their peculiar way. And I and others are open to debating how claims of 'irrelevance', technical etc have led to this. Now that Third Worldists use the very same standards that were used against them to question the 'calls to unity' these standards are not applicable? On 2013/06/11 02:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 11 Jun 2013, at 07:00, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> Notably, it is not apolitical. Therefore we shouldn't have to start at square 1 whenever it comes to agreeing on a position that advances the public interest; we can begin by ruling out all the positions that conflict with the Vision, and dismissing them when they hold up consensus. > > All well and good, but we need to agree of what constitutes the public interest. And it has become apparent that we often do not. > > We used to agree on some things, like a multi-stakehoder approach, but over the years, even support for that has splintered. I find that discussions on this list, for all their obfuscating venom are indeed about the search for the point of public interest. And we are fundamentally split on that. > > Some have gone so far as to argue that they hold the key to the public interest because they are A, B or C, and those who disagree with them are T&A infidels who sold out to corporate interests. Someday we may get beyond this episode. In the meantime I expect the impasse will continue. > > avri > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 07:29:10 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:29:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) Edward Snowden Makes Himself an Even Bigger Problem to the Officialdom Message-ID: <51B70A06.4060901@gmail.com> Some interesting analysis, including how the left and right in the US are responding to this... this is definitely not just a left wing or liberal concern in the US... Edward Snowden Makes Himself an Even Bigger Problem to the Officialdom Posted: 10 Jun 2013 03:25 AM PDT Former CIA employee, most recently Booz Allen employee Edward Snowden was already the intel community's biggest nightmare, and now this: You could not have done better if you had gone to central casting and had a professional scriptwriter. He's on the nerdy side of attractive, sensible-sounding and relaxed, articulate, and able to deliver key points in a compact, mass market friendly manner. Sadly, who carriers the message matters a great deal to Americans, and Snowden has revealed himself to be credible and likeable. In other words, as Foreign Policy noted a couple of days ago, the PR battle is on, and Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian team have played this very well. The releasing of key pieces over a series of days has kept the story on a full boil, and having Snowden agree to the taping and releasing it towards the end was astute, witness: Screen shot 2013-06-10 at 4.41.00 AM But putting the effectiveness of the strategy of the packaging of the story aside, the message in the video is even more disturbing than the program overviews released so far. If nothing else, listen to the section starting at 3:16 to 3:40, where he described the untrammeled access analysts have to information. Your information. And we're already seeing serious fracturing on political lines. Some vocal members of the right are alarmed about the reach of the surveillance state. Glenn Beck <%28https://twitter.com/glennbeck> and Rod Dreher <%28http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher> of the American Conservative have come out supporting Snowden by name. Rand Paul , Neil Cavuto , Peggy Noonan , Jim Sensenbrenner ,Heather Ginsberg and Ed Morrissey have all criticized the programs discussed in the Snowden revelations. Andrew Dittmer sent these comments from the very conservative site TheBlaze, picking the most recent ones expressing a clear point of view on Snowden: "Regardless this guy is an American hero. Thank God for his courage and integrity." "Just finished listening to the video and analyzing his body language;this guy is a good guy and nothing like that POS Bradley Manning. Manning should spend life in prison or be shot and this guy needs an Independent seat in the Senate and head an Intelligence Committee." "I'm glad that this information is exposed, but I don't believe this "whistleblower" had purely honorable intentions. He could have given this information to Constitution friendly politicians, NY Times, Fox News, but he chose to give it to a well known anti-American journalist that works for a foreign news organization." "I find it interesting that you think Glenn Greenwald is anti-American because he recently went to work for a british newspaper (bigger money offer, American capitalism and such) and that he is willing to speak out against the gubment. Is that not an American ideal -- to speak out against the gubment when you think it is wrong?" "The difference is simple, Manning was trying to hurt America, this guy is trying to save her." "As for me, this dude is a freedom fighter for humanity and against tyranny." "not very bright for an ex-spook. Guess he doesn't read the news, Obamy is out for leaker blood." "One day when we elect an American again as president I hope we can put this man on a Quarter as an anniversery coin." "The govt program is illegal, so I'd like to think he's a good guy. I'm concerned he could be seeking publicity, but I hope he's a true believer in freedom & liberty, though I see globalism in his word choices, which sets off my alert signals." "Watched the video. Can't say the young man is a patriot and hero, nor can I say that he is a wacked liberal. More needs to be seen and revealed. The man definitely has humility and is not arrogant, but very bright. Some would say that he is not very bright doing what heis doing." As Chris Engel pointed out yesterday, a number of sites, particularly tech oriented sites, have tried attacking Greenwald's work for inaccuracy. Ed Harrison has been keeping tabs on the reporting (see here and here ) and describes it as falling into two camps, the first being techies who take issue with the use of terminology. This is similar to the sort of finance pedantry which was routine during and after the crisis. While getting the fine points right matters, too often the critics are simply trying to confine the discussion to experts, who also happen overwhelmingly to be pro status quo. The second is more obvious: journalists who are affiliated with the technology industry (and may not be experts but translate for them regularly) and will defend their meal tickets (the tech industry gets huge amounts of funding from the defense and intel communities). The other element that Ed highlighted by e-mail is that this shows the dangers of outsourcing government functions. Here are some sections of a blistering, must-read 2007 Salon article by Tim Shorrock on Booz (hat tip Richard Smith): With revenues of $3.7 billion in 2005, Booz Allen is one of the nation's biggest defense and intelligence contractors. Under [J.Michael] McConnell's watch, Booz Allen has been deeply involved in some of the most controversial counterterrorism programs the Bush administration has run, including the infamous Total Information Awareness data-mining scheme. As a key contractor and advisor to the NSA, Booz Allen is almost certainly participating in the agency's warrantless surveillance of the telephone calls and e-mails of American citizens... U.S. intelligence budgets are classified, as are nearly all intelligence contracts. But the overall budget is generally understood to be running about $45 billion a year. Based on interviews I've done for an upcoming book, I estimate that about 50 percent of this spending goes directly to private companies. This is big business: The accumulated spending on intelligence since 2002 is much higher than the total of $33 billion the Bush administration paid to Bechtel, Halliburton and other large corporations for reconstruction projects in Iraq... Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Booz Allen was hired by the CIA to audit the agency's monitoring of trillions of dollars in international financial transactions moving through a European cooperative called SWIFT.... The ACLU and Privacy International, an organization that monitors government intrusion, jointly issued a scathing report on the issue last September. "Though Booz Allen's role is to verify that the access to the SWIFT data is not abused, its relationship with the US government calls its objectivity significantly into question," the two organizations said.... Booz Allen served as the NSA's chief advisor on one of its most significant outsourcing projects. Called Groundbreaker, this huge project was launched shortly before the 9/11 attacks to overhaul the NSA's internal I.T. systems. Booz Allen's work on this project was outlined in a Booz Allen magazine piece on "Government Clients." Working with the NSA, the article states, Booz Allen "helped create a new model of managed competition that outsourced key pieces of the agency's IT infrastructure services." Its work on Groundbreaker "included source selection support and evaluating vendor proposals." Last year, however, the Baltimore Sun investigated the project and concluded it was a failure. Over the course of the project, Groundbreaker's $2 billion price tag had doubled, and the problems with the system, according to insiders who spoke to the Sun, were legion. "Some analysts and managers have said their productivity is half of what it used to be because the new system requires them to perform many more steps to accomplish what a few keystrokes used to," the paper reported. Another NSA program that Booz Allen was involved in, Trailblazer, which was designed to overhaul the NSA's signals intelligence system, is widely considered an even worse failure. Oh, and guess who the majority owner of Booz is? Carlyle Group, the long-time DC heavyweight private equity firm with deep connections to the Bush family. We can see how clever it is proving to be to have outsourced big chunks of the defense, security, and intelligence apparatus to mercenaries, even worse, ones with really high return targets (the traditional public service model led to screening for true believers. By contrast, Snowden touches on his discomfort with his well-paid lifestyle and his power). And even though a lot of the tech community benefits directly from military-industrial complex largesse, there's also a good deal of soul searching and consternation in some quarters of that world as well. We finally may have seen the abuse where Obama's default strategy, that any problem can be solved by better PR, has met its match. The fact that Greenwald and the Guardian have played this story well and gotten it the airing it deserves is very important. But it's also that Snowden has been able to provide concrete examples that put the spotlight on the scope and lack of real checks on a massive police state apparatus. And it isn't just Americans that are alarmed. It's going to be very hard for the officialdom to minimize or explain away this information, and we should all be very grateful for that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Screen-shot-2013-06-10-at-4.41.00-AM.png Type: image/png Size: 20390 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:53:07 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:53:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Government_Spying_on_Americans_=85_?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?and_then_Giving_Info_to_Giant_Corporations?= Message-ID: <51B71DB3.6060302@gmail.com> [The Great Cummupence... And it is the state that is bad, not the intimate relations between private corporations and the USG... what implications for MS?] Government Spying on Americans … and then Giving Info to Giant Corporations Posted on June 11, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog Big Banks and Other Corporate Bigwigs Benefit from Illegal Spying You’ve heard that the government spies on all Americans. But you might not know that the government shares some of that information with big corporations. In addition, Reuters reported in 2011 that the NSA shares intelligence with Wall Street banks in the name of “battling hackers.” The National Security Agency, a secretive arm of the U.S. military, has begun providing Wall Street banks with intelligence on foreign hackers, a sign of growing U.S. fears of financial sabotage.The assistance from the agency that conducts electronic spying overseas is part of an effort by American banks and other financial firms to get help from the U.S. military and private defense contractors to fend off cyber attacks, according to interviews with U.S. officials, security experts and defense industry executives. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has also warned banks of particular threats amid concerns that hackers could potentially exploit security vulnerabilities to wreak havoc across global markets and cause economic mayhem. *** NSA Director Keith Alexander, who runs the U.S. military’s cyber operations, told Reuters the agency is currently talking to financial firms about sharing electronic information on malicious software, possibly by expanding a pilot program through which *it offers similar data to the defense industry*. *** NSA, which has long been charged with protecting classified government networks from attack, is already working with Nasdaq to beef up its defenses after hackers infiltrated its computer systems last year and installed malicious software that allowed them to spy on the directors of publicly held companies. *** The NSA’s work with Wall Street marks a milestone in the agency’s efforts to *make its cyber intelligence available more broadly to the private sector*. *** Greater cooperation with industry became possible after a deal reached a year ago between the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, *allowing NSA to provide cyber expertise to* other government agencies and *certain private companies*. In March, PC Magazine noted : “Right now, the ability to share real-time information is complicated and there are legal barriers. We have to overcome that,” Gen Keith B. Alexander, director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, said during a Thursday appearance at Georgia Tech’s Cyber Security Symposium. [Alexander has been pushing for the anti-privacy Internet bill known as "CISPA " to be passed.] “It allows the government to start working with industry and … discuss with each of these sector about the best approach,” he said. CISPA would allow the NSA to more openly share data with corporations in the name of protecting against “cyber threats.” But that phrase is too squisy. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes: A “cybersecurity purpose” only means that a company has to think that a user is trying to harm its network. What does that mean, exactly? The definition is broad and vague. The definition allows purposes such as guarding against “improper” information modification, ensuring “timely” access to information or “preserving authorized restrictions on access…protecting…proprietary information” (i.e. DRM). Moreover, as the ACLU notes , “Fusion Centers” – a hybrid of military, intelligence agency, police and private corporations set up in centers throughout the country , and run by the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security – allow big businesses like Boeing to get access to classified information which gives them an /unfair advantage/ over smaller competitors: Participation in fusion centers might give Boeing access to the trade secrets or security vulnerabilities of competing companies, or might give it an advantage in competing for government contracts. Expecting a Boeing analyst to distinguish between information that represents a security risk to Boeing and information that represents a business risk may be too much to ask. A 2008 Department of Homeland Security Privacy Office review of fusion centers concluded that they presented risks to privacy because of ambiguous lines of authority, rules and oversight, the participation of the military and /*private sector*/, data mining, excessive secrecy, inaccurate or incomplete information and the dangers of mission creep. The Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found in 2012 that fusion centers spy on citizens, produce ‘shoddy’ work unrelated to terrorism or real threats: “The Subcommittee investigation found that DHS-assigned detailees to the fusion centers forwarded ‘intelligence’ of uneven quality – oftentimes shoddy, rarely timely, sometimes endangering citizens’ civil liberties and Privacy Act protections, occasionally taken from already-published public sources, and *more often than not unrelated to terrorism*.” Under the FBI’s Infraguard program, businesses sometimes receive intel even /before/ elected officials . Law enforcement agencies spy on protesters and then share the info – at taxpayer expense – with the giant Wall Street banks And a security expert says that all Occupy Wall Street protesters had their cellphone information logged by the government . Alternet notes : Ironically, records indicate that corporate entities engaged in such public-private intelligence sharing partnerships were often the very same corporate entities criticized, and protested against, by the Occupy Wall Street movement as having undue influence in the functions of public government. In essence, big banks and giant corporations are seen as being part of “critical infrastructure” and “key resources ” … so the government protects them. That creates a dynamic where the government will do quite a bit to protect the big boys against any real or imagined threats … whether from activists or even smaller competitors. (Remember that the government has completely propped up the big banks , even though they went bankrupt due to stupid gambles .) And given that some millions of private contractors have clearance to view information gathered by spy agencies, and that information gained by the NSA by spying on Americans is being shared with agencies in other countries , at least some of the confidential information is undoubtedly leaking into private hands /even without/ the government’s knowledge or consent. As the ACLU noted in 2004: There is a long and unfortunate history of cooperation between government security agencies and powerful corporations to deprive individuals of their privacy and other civil liberties, and any program that institutionalizes close, secretive ties between such organizations raises serious questions about the scope of its activities, now and in the future. Indeed, the government has been affirmatively helping the big banks, giant oil companies and other large corporations cover up fraud and to go after critics. For example, Business Week reported on May 23, 2006: President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Reuters noted in 2010: U.S. securities regulators originally treated the New York Federal Reserve’s bid to keep secret many of the details of the American International Group bailout like a request to protect matters of national security, according to emails obtained by Reuters. Wired reported the same year: The DHS issued a directive to employees in July 2009 requiring a wide range of public records requests to pass through political appointees for vetting. These included any requests dealing with a “controversial or sensitive subject” or pertaining to meetings involving *prominent business leaders* and elected officials. Requests from lawmakers, journalists, and activist and watchdog groups were also placed under this scrutiny. In an effort to protect Bank of America from the threatened Wikileaks expose of wrongdoing – the Department of Justice told Bank of America to a hire a specific hardball-playing law firm to assemble a team to take down WikiLeaks (and see this ) The government and big banks actually coordinated on the violent crackdown of the anti-big bank Occupy protest. The government is also using anti-terrorism laws to keep people from learning what pollutants are in their own community, in order to protect the fracking, coal and other polluting industries. See this , this , this , this and this . Investigating factory farming can get one labeled a terrorist . Infringing the copyright of a big corporation may also get labeled as a terrorist … and a swat team may be deployed to your house. See this , this , this and this . As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes : This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism. In short, the “national security” apparatus has been hijacked to serve the needs of big business -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:45:27 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:45:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] More perspectives on US Digital Panopticon Message-ID: <51B71BE7.7070103@gmail.com> Two interesting articles below... **Spy vs Spy in the cyber age* By Brendan O'Reilly Despite very public pressure, US President Barack Obama and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, failed to reach an agreement on combating cyber-espionage at their weekend meeting in California. Beijing and Washington are trading increasingly harsh accusations of launching state-sanctioned cyber attacks. Meanwhile, a covert program of Internet data mining by US intelligence agencies has been revealed by a young whistleblower, who has taken refuge in China's Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. China and the United States are contesting a vast and uncharted arena of superpower rivalry. The cyber war has already begun. Obama and Xi left their summit in Palm Springs with a series of* important agreements, covering such pressing issues as the North Korean nuclear weapons program and global warming. However, Obama's efforts to persuade Xi to work out an agreement on cyber-espionage were entirely unsuccessful. To avoid electronic eavesdropping, Xi and his delegation decided at the last minute to stay in a downtown hotel away from the summit's grounds. If he wants to prevent American intelligence from accessing his personal communications, Xi would be wise to avoid Facebook and Gmail. In recent weeks, Washington and Beijing have very publicly exchanged allegations of cyber malfeasance. Before the Palm Springs summit, a White House official stressed, "Governments are responsible for cyber attacks that take place from within their borders. As a part of our interests in protecting US businesses, we will raise with China any concerns we have about intrusions we believe emanate from China." [1] The Chinese government responded with counter-accusations of American cyber attacks directed against China. A report in People's Daily claimed that in the first five months of 2013, more than 4,000 US-based control servers "hijacked" 2.91 million mainframes in China. Huang Chengqing, the director of the Chinese National Computer Network Emergency Response Technical Team, declared "We have mountains of data, if we wanted to accuse the US, but it's not helpful in solving the problem. The importance of handling Internet security cases keeps rising, but the issue can only be settled through communication, not confrontation." [2] Meanwhile, reports of a vast operation by American intelligence to collect information from the world's leading Internet firms have overshadowed the extensive cyber-espionage and raids carried out between the US and China. The PRISM program is a mechanism for direct US government access to the data of Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, AOL, Apple, and Paltalk. It allows US intelligence to view emails, search queries, online chats, photos, and video calls hosted by the major platforms for online communications - everything from Gmail and Hotmail to YouTube, and Skype. According to classified documents, the NSA collected nearly 3 billion pieces of electronic information from US computer servers in the period of just one month. [3] According to the source of the intelligence leak, "The NSA has built an infrastructure that allows it to intercept almost everything. With this capability, the vast majority of human communications are automatically ingested without targeting." [4] Director of National Intelligence James Clapper released a fact sheet meant to justify the once-secret program, claiming PRISM "facilitates the targeted acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning foreign targets located outside the United States under court oversight". For the program to collect data, it must have "an appropriate, and documented, foreign intelligence purpose" and target a person "reasonably believed to be outside the United States". [5] In other words, any potentially useful electronic communications of any human being outside the United States are fair game. According to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the president of the United States has the authority to target foreign communications without a court order for the period of one year. No wonder the NSA can collect three billion pieces of data in a month. China's blocking of major social networking, news, and political websites - the so-called "Great Firewall of China" - has long been the target of Western, and particularly American, condemnation. In a 2010 speech, then secretary of state Hillary Clinton warned that a "new information curtain is descending across much of the world... In the last year, we've seen a spike in threats to the free flow of information. China, Tunisia and Uzbekistan have stepped up their censorship of the Internet." [6] The most popular US-based websites blocked by the Chinese government are Facebook and YouTube. Google search and Gmail, while not entirely jammed, are frequently disrupted by China's Great Firewall. It seems that Clinton's much-championed "free flow of information" includes an unquenchable flood of personal data into the NSA's massive information farms. By blocking Facebook and YouTube, Beijing has inadvertently protected the private information of Chinese citizens (at least from Washington), and denied the US government billions of pieces of potentially useful data about the Chinese economy, military, and government. Roughly 700 million Chinese people are active on the Internet, out of a worldwide total of 2.4 billion Internet users. In other words, fully 29% of all Internet users live in China. Savvy Chinese netizens can easily find means to get beyond the Great Firewall. However, the inconvenience of these methods, and the availability of domestic Chinese alternatives, has greatly restricted the penetration of Facebook and YouTube into the Chinese market. The PRISM program has provided Beijing with a golden justification for continuing to restrict access to certain websites. Washington's calls for freedom of information are more likely to be viewed in a hypocritical light in the wake of the PRISM program's public outing. *A refuge in the Middle Kingdom?* The electronic rivalry between Washington and Beijing is becoming yet more intense, as the whistleblower who exposed the PRISM program takes refuge in Hong Kong. Edward Snowden, a former CIA-employee, chose Hong Kong as his port of call before leaking the classified documents. When coming public about his own identity, he cited the city's "reputation for freedom", while in the same breath saying this distinction comes "in spite of the People's Republic of China". [7] Snowden has cited Iceland as a possible long-term destination for asylum. However, a former CIA employee, no matter how ideologically committed to the cause of freedom, is unlikely to be naive. The recent history of "extraordinary rendition" of terror suspects from America's democratic Western allies probably factored into Snowden's decision to decision to go East. Choosing Hong Kong may serve a dual purpose - Snowden hopes to take advantage of both the autonomous city's open judicial process and the implied protection of China's clandestine security forces. In the light of intelligence officials joking about "disappearing" Snowden and a reporter covering the PRISM story [8], Snowden might reasonably chose to trust Beijing over Reykjavik for his personal protection. While it may seem ironic for an American champion of open information to take refugee in China, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Former CIA official Robert Baer has even gone so far as to say the entire leak of PRISM was orchestrated by Beijing: "On the face of it, it looks like it's under some sort of Chinese control. ... You have to ask what's going on? I mean, China is not a friendly country, and every aspect of that country is controlled." [9] Baer cited both Snowden's port of call and the timing of the leak - coming at the same days as the Obama-Xi summit - as being particularly suspicious. If indeed Snowden has defected to Beijing, this would represent a huge coup for China in the emerging realm of cyber rivalry. Already the PRISM program has helped to justify China's Internet censorship and expose a large degree of official hypocrisy on the part of the American government. The most dangerous aspect of cyber espionage remains its unpredictable nature. There are no clear rules of engagement differentiating between routine intelligence gathering and outright aggression. Both Beijing and Washington have a clear interest in defining red lines to prevent uncontrollable escalation. However, this very necessary discussion is probably best conducted in secret. Washington's vocal denunciations of Beijing's aggressive cyber activities have served little purpose other than angering Beijing, exposing American hypocrisy abroad, and justifying increased domestic control and surveillance over the Internet by the American government. The cyber war is already here. America's PRISM and China's Great Firewall may be signs of what is to come in a developing electronic arms race. /*Notes:*/ 1. Obama to press China's Xi to act against cyber spying , Reuters, June 4, 2013. 2. China is a victim of hacking attacks , People's Daily, June 5, 2013. 3. Parts of NSA's PRISM program declassified , USA Today, June 8, 2013. 4. Edward Snowden, NSA files source: 'If they want to get to you, in time they will' , The Guardian, June 9, 2013. 5. Parts of NSA's PRISM program declassified , USA Today, June 8, 2013. 6. Clinton: Internet 'information curtain' is dropping , CNN, January 21, 2010. 7. Edward Snowden, NSA files source: 'If they want to get to you, in time they will' , The Guardian, June 9, 2013. 8. Report: Intel officials allegedly 'joke' about making NSA leaker 'disappear' , Examiner, June 10, 2013. 9. Ex-CIA Official Baer: China Could be Behind NSA Leaks , Newsmax, June 9, 2013. /*Brendan P O'Reilly* is a China-based writer and educator from Seattle. He is author of /The Transcendent Harmony. /He may be reached at oreillyasia at gmail.com. / (Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) * THE ROVING EYE* *Digital Blackwater rules* By Pepe Escobar The judgment of Daniel "Pentagon Papers" Ellsberg is definitive; "There has not been in American history a more important leak than Edward Snowden's release of NSA material". And that includes the release of the Pentagon Papers themselves. Here is the 12-minute video by The Guardian where Snowden details his motives. By now, everything swirling around the US National Security Agency (NSA) points to a black box in a black hole. The black box is the NSA headquarters itself in Fort Meade, Maryland. The black hole is an area that would include the suburbs of Virginia's Fairfax County near the CIA but mostly the intersection of the Baltimore Parkway and Maryland Route 32. There one finds a business park a mile away from the NSA which Michael Hayden, a former NSA director (1999-2005) told Salon's Tim Shorrock is "the largest concentration of cyber power on the planet". [1] Hayden coined it "Digital Blackwater". Here is a decent round up of key questions still not answered about the black hole. But when it comes to how a 29-year old IT wizard with little formal education has been able to access a batch of ultra-sensitive secrets of the US intelligence-national security complex, that's a no-brainer; it's all about the gung-ho privatization of spying - referred to by a mountain of euphemisms of the "contractor reliance" kind. In fact the bulk of the hardware and software used by the dizzying network of 16 US intelligence agencies is privatized. A Washington Post investigation found out that US homeland security, counter-terror and spy agencies do business with over 1,900 companies. [2] An obvious consequence of this contractor tsunami - hordes of "knowledge" high-tech proletarians in taupe cubicles - is their indiscriminate access to ultra-sensitive security. A systems administrator like Snowden can have access to practically everything. "Revolving door" does not even begin to explain the system. Snowden was one of 25,000 employees of Booz Allen Hamilton ("We are visionaries") for the past three months. [3] Over 70% of these employees, according to the company, have a government security clearance; 49% are top secret (as in Snowden's case), or higher. The former director of national intelligence Mike McConnell is now a Booz Allen vice president. The new director of national intelligence, the sinister-looking retired general James Clapper, is a former Booz Allen executive. At least US - and world - public opinion may now have a clearer idea of how a Pashtun girl in Waziristan is obliterated by a "targeted strike". It's all a matter of this privatized NSA-collected meta-data and matrix multiplication leading to a "signature". The "terrorist" Pashtun girl of course may eventually morph in the near future into a dangerous tree-hugger or a vocal political protester. *It's all China's fault* True to form, as soon as Snowden revealed his identity US corporate media privileged shooting the messenger instead of poring over the message. That included everything from cheap character assassination to the usual former CIA asset spinning that in Washington many were looking at Snowden as an agent in a potential Chinese espionage plot . Much has also been made of the John Le Carre-esque plot twist of Snowden leaving his tranquil life in Hawaii and flying to Hong Kong on May 20, because "they have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent". Hong Kong-based blogger Wen Yunchao memorably described it as Snowden having "left the tiger's den and entered the wolf's lair". Yet Snowden's visa stamp at Chek Lap Kok airport lasts for 90 days - plenty of time to ponder the next move. Since 1996, before the British handover to China, an extradition treaty applies between the tiger and the wolf. [4] The US Department of Justice is already surveying its options. It's important to remember that the Hong Kong judicial system is independent from China's - according to the Deng Xiaoping-conceptualized "one country, two systems". As much as Washington may go for extraditing Snowden, he may also apply for political asylum. In both cases he may stay in Hong Kong for months, in fact years. The Hong Kong government cannot extradite anyone claiming he will be persecuted in his country of origin. And crucially, article 6 of the treaty stipulates, "a fugitive offender shall not be surrendered if the offence of which that person is accused or was convicted is an offence of a political character." Another clause stipulates that a fugitive shall not be surrendered if that implicates "the defense, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy" of - guess who - the People's Republic of China. So then we may have a case of Hong Kong and Beijing having to reach an agreement. Yet even if they decided to extradite Snowden, he could argue in court this was "an offence of a political character". The bottom line - this could drag on for years. And it's too early to tell how Beijing would play it for maximum leverage. A "win-win" situation from a Chinese point of view would be to balance its commitment to absolute non-interference in foreign domestic affairs, its desire not to rock the fragile bilateral relation boat, but also what non-pivoting move the US government would offer in return. *The ultimate Panopticon* The usual rabid right-wingers in the US predictably skip the fact of how Snowden does not see intelligence analysts - and even the US government, per se - as inherent "bad guys". [5] What he stressed is how they all work under a false premise; "If a surveillance program produces information of value, it legitimizes it ... In one step, we've managed to justify the operation of the Panopticon". Oh yes, make no mistake; Snowden has carefully read his Michel Foucault (he also stressed his revulsion facing "the capabilities of this architecture of oppression"). Foucault's deconstruction of the Panopticon's architecture is now a classic (see it here in an excerpt of his 1975 masterpiece /Discipline and Punish/). The Panopticon was the ultimate surveillance system, designed by utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century. The Panopticon - a tower surrounded by cells, a pre-Orwellian example of "architecture of oppression" - was not originally conceived for the surveillance of a prison, but of a factory crammed with landless peasants on forced labor. Oh, but those were rudimentary proto-capitalist days. Welcome to the (savagely privatized) future, where the NSA black hole, "Digital Blackwater", lords over all as the ultimate Panopticon. /*Notes*/: 1. Digital Blackwater: Meet the Contractors Who Analyze Your Personal Data , Alternet, June 10, 2013. 2. Top Secret America , Washington Post, June, 2010. 3. See here for company website. 4. See here for extradition treaty. 5. Code name 'Verax': Snowden, in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks , Washington Post, June 10, 2013. /*Pepe Escobar* is the author of/ Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge . His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). /He may be reached at/ pepeasia at yahoo.com. (Copyright 2013 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ad_choices_i_UR.png Type: image/png Size: 513 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 08:48:49 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:48:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds Message-ID: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds Tyler Durden's picture Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study , a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National Security Agency's (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry Edward Snowden/: *you just threw your life away for nothing*/*. *The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. More from Pew: The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,*finds no indications that last week's revelations of the government's collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.* It just gets better: /Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats./ These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA "has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism."* In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration's surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate "people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so." Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. *Democrats now view the NSA's phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.* Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a /*turnkey totalitarian tyrant*/, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. Overall, those who disagree with the government's data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government's tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here . As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. Average: 4.52 Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 08:54:03 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 12:54:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will never be taken seriously. There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. Kerry Brown (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU countries. The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:00:35 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:00:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald Message-ID: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> [haha the WashPo asks the govt before it publishes info... Eat your heart our China... the US runs a tight ship... its ideology that allows a 'scoop' to be second guessed by the state... - no aristocracy but boy does the mainstream media know their place! ] International » World NEW YORK, June 11, 2013 US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. AP Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. The man who claimed to leak state secrets on U.S. government eavesdropping sought to break the story through a columnist for a U.K.-based publication who has made no secret of his distaste for intrusions on privacy. Edward Snowden brought his information to Glenn Greenwald of /The Guardian/ instead of to the /Washington Post/, with which he had briefly corresponded. The case illustrates the passion an opinion-driven journalist can bring to a breaking news story; at the same time it raises questions about fairness. Mr. Greenwald, author of three books in which he argues the government has trampled on personal rights in the name of protecting national security, wrote the original stories exposing the extent of the government's data collection. Over the weekend, he identified intelligence contractor Snowden as his source at the latter's request, and said more stories are coming. "What we disclosed was of great public interest, of great importance in a democracy, that the U.S. government is building this massive spying apparatus aimed at its own population," Mr. Greenwald said on Monday on /MSNBC/'s "Morning Joe." Mr. Greenwald also told The Associated Press that he's been contacted by "countless people" over the last 24 hours offering to create legal defence funds for Mr. Snowden. The topic is personal for Mr. Greenwald (46). The former constitutional and civil rights lawyer, educated at the New York University Law School, began the "Unclaimed Territory" blog in 2005 and wrote "How Would a Patriot Act?" a year later. The book criticized the Bush administration for its use of executive power. Mr. Greenwald, now based in Brazil, wrote a regular column for /Salon/ for five years until joining /The Guardian/ last year. Elaborating on the surveillance programme, he wrote, one programme collects hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. The second programme takes in audio, email and other electronic activities primarily by non-U.S. nationals who use providers such as Microsoft and Apple. Mr. Greenwald described the collection of phone records on Monday as "rampant abuse and it needs sunlight. That's why this person came forward and that's why we published our stories. On "Morning Joe," he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using "Obama talking points" when she challenged him with a question. "The wall of secrecy behind which they operate is impenetrable and it is a real menace to democracy," said Mr. Greenwald, who won a 2010 Online Journalism Association award for his coverage of Bradley Manning, who is charged with giving classified documents to WikiLeaks. Mr. Snowden, however, had not just gone to Mr. Greenwald with his information. Barton Gellman of /The Washington Post/ wrote on Sunday that Mr. Snowden had contacted him about the story. He said Mr. Snowden had asked that the /Post/ to publish within 72 hours the full contents of a presentation he had made about the collection of electronic activity from the Silicon Valley companies. Mr. Gellman said the /Post/ would not make any guarantees and sought the government's views about whether the information would harm national security. The /Post/ eventually agreed to publish a small sample of what Mr. Snowden was offering, but Mr. Snowden backed away, writing that "I regret that we weren't able to keep this project unilateral," Mr. Gellman wrote. Mr. Greenwald's clear point of view doesn't necessarily weaken the story, said Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University and author of the /Press Think/ blog. "In many ways it strengthens it," he said. Mr. Greenwald has a clear stance on privacy and national security, but they aren't partisan; he's criticized Democratic President Barack Obama and his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush. Journalists with strong viewpoints, is a tradition with a long history in the U.S., Mr. Rosen said. "The fact that sources now may choose (outlets) on the basis of commitment is a fact and journalists whose professional stance is no commitment may find themselves at a disadvantage," he said. Mr. Greenwald's known feelings on the issue "does leave a little opening for critics," said Ellen Shearer, head of the national security journalism initiative at Northwestern University. There's always a risk that such passion can work against a journalist; some people would worry that facts contradictory to a predisposed belief could be overlooked. To this point, Mr. Shearer said there's been little pushback on the facts, with the debate primarily about whether the information should be published. Intelligence officials are investigating the leak and its impact on its programs. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the revelation of the intelligence-gathering programmes reckless and said it has done "huge, grave damage." /The Guardian/ took care not to publish material that may help other countries improve their eavesdropping or could put the lives of covert agents at risk, Mr. Greenwald said. "We've published these things they marked 'top secret' that don't actually harm national security but conceal what they've done from the public," he said. Keywords: Glenn Greenwald , US surveillance leak , Edward Snowden , right to privacy , U.S. electronic snooping , US NSA programme , -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IN11_GLENN_GREENWA_1483443f.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21640 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 09:01:18 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:01:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am offended by this post. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob > Sent: June-11-13 12:00 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance > program > > Brown > > Here we agree. There needs to be better oversight. But this is a truism. > > How will it help Africans, Latino's and Asians? This is not just an American > issue. Can we please include the third world, and Sen. > Feinstein is an illegal warmonger just like Bush - we cannot share any > confidence in her and I am surprised that this has happened under her watch > and she is still respected. > > See, we simply do not share your confidence. I hate to point it out, but this is > precisely the reason why national solutions do not suffice. > > I would recommend a broader world view, but we disagree on starting > points, and the explicit/implicit American Exceptionalism of this point needs > to be recognised as unacceptable for its lack of cosmopolitanism. > What about the privacy and other rights of millions of people who have no > stake in US oversight or democracy? Why are American's more equal than > others on the internet in terms of activating their rights? > > Apologies, but the perspective is too American centric. As an outsider, what > should be of concern is if American people were lied to about the Iraq war, > about their rights being protected (although the US technically has been > under a state of emergency since 2001 - a state that needs to be > proportionate to the circumstances, hence no posse comitas in the terrible > tragedy that was Boston recently) after PATRIOT Act (just look at some of the > horrible discussions on this to see what I am talking about) which is now > confirmed to have been abused. Depending on the access these committees > had to info will determine their complicity. This is only reasonable. But > BigMedia in US and Uk are able to better manipulate political opinion without > censorship - something that would make dictatorial regimes green with envy. > > And the problem is they cannot tell you how well the programme worked. > Just like they have to give the bankers money to save your 401k and > pensions... this is not liberty, or choice, this is a a one sided involuntary > bargain where ordinary folk pick up the costs. > > We had told those who were playing rough to play as they must but be more > sophisticated. They did not listen and were confident in their power (power > they still have and which is institutionalised because I suspect the MAG will > not tolerate legitimacy discussions except in the most round about way). > Now they must stand by and justify their positions. In other words, this is not > the time for civil society unity (as I said, that is to blindly misread the politics > of IGC). Now is the time for principled unity, not hiding amongst the > vulnerable. > > In short, please do not presume on my (or some third worldist) political > generosity at this time when the context has been that such generosity is like > pearls to swine.... in some of the discussions I even had to beg for 'reason' > even conceding that perhaps 'slaves make bad masters'... to NO AVAIL. > Welcome to IGC. Nice if you hang out with the powerful, treacherous if you > do not. > > I am genuinely sorry, you are all Afghans now... > > > > > On 2013/06/10 08:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > >> But, she added, ³Here¹s the rub: the instances where this has > >> produced good ‹ has disrupted plots, prevented terrorist attacks, is > >> all classified, that¹s what¹s so hard about this.² > > That is what needs to be at the centre of the conversation. Can the > > good things that come out of this be done if there is better > > oversight? I think they can. In any hearings that come out of this I'd > > like to hear why they could not work with better oversight. So far I > > have not heard any arguments that convince me that the same results > > could not be achieved if there was better oversight. I am not > > necessarily against governments getting this data but there has to be > > oversight to protect against abuses and it needs to be publicly > > disclosed what data they are collecting and how it is collected. > > > > Kerry Brown > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:01:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:01:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> <51B70344.8080206@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hi Jeremy, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:00 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 11/06/13 18:35, michael gurstein wrote: > > Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal agreement on > this list concerning the nature of the public interest with respect to the > Internet and Internet Governance (or even if there is a public interest with > respect to Internet Governance). It has thus proven to be fundamentally > impossible to ``do something productive``. > > > There is some guidance in the IGC Charter about what members are expected to > be signing up for when self-asserting their membership of the IGC. The > IGC's Vision, for example: > > The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the > technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed > human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both > social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance > should be inclusive, people centered.... I have always taken this to mean that people are the atomic units of IG, that IG processes are inclusive of all, not limited to "accredited" folk or "representatives". This may be the 'first principle" difference which causes so much friction. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:12:46 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:12:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B7224E.1090304@gmail.com> Could you please clarify why this is the case? On 2013/06/11 04:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > I am offended by this post. > > Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 09:22:18 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:52:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B7248A.6020707@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 06:24 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It > will never be taken seriously. > Taken seriously by whom? We are addressing it to the public in general, and people are dead serious horrified by what they are coming to know of. BTW, I took that expression 'horror' from Nick's email, and if you arent really horrified by what happened, I must say you are among the very few.... In just one month of March 2013, 6.7 billion pieces of intelligence were picked up by the 'system' from India's computers and networks .... And you are saying that 'horror' is too strong a word!! > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated > willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries > of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a > far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, > some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data > from the mentioned companies. > We are not making a judicial pronouncement here. We are making a civil society statement based on adequate information. So do you want to wait till after a judicial inquiry had brought out all the facts without the least possibility of any wrong information? Sorry, civil society work cant happen like that... > That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and > speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. > If you want to add things like 'what in our opinion is' to relevant parts of the proposed statement, please go ahead... parminder > > Kerry Brown > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which > the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense > surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based > companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, > Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic > human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US > government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' > vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled > that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the > main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any > such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what > about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the > 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US > government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double > talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is > discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – > from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get > implicated? > > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global > companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in > cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. > Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the > kind of options that may have been available to these other companies > as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing > government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on > their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have > not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. > > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and > these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby > these companies help further US government's political, military, etc > interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political > might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these > Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the > US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest > possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU > countries. > > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council > calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It > should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable > norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal > frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online > spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and > economic rights. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 09:26:47 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:26:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B7224E.1090304@gmail.com> References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> <51B7224E.1090304@gmail.com> Message-ID: You assume you know my politics. You ascribe opinions to me that are not true. You assume you speak for billions of people. You insult Afghans. Worst of all you assume as a Canadian I automatically agree with US policy. I am more than willing to engage in constructive debate on the issues. Your post was not constructive. It was condescending. Kerry Brown > -----Original Message----- > From: Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] > Sent: June-11-13 6:13 AM > To: Kerry Brown > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance > program > > Could you please clarify why this is the case? > > On 2013/06/11 04:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > I am offended by this post. > > > > Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:43:00 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:43:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under these laws. They/we are `fair game`. In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s innocence in any lasting way. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will never be taken seriously. There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. Kerry Brown (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU countries. The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:46:02 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:46:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald In-Reply-To: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> References: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: A clear sign that the USSR has it nemesis in the USA. On 6/11/13, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > [haha the WashPo asks the govt before it publishes info... Eat > your heart our China... the US runs a tight ship... its ideology > that allows a 'scoop' to be second guessed by the state... - no > aristocracy but boy does the mainstream media know their place! ] > > > > International » > World > > NEW YORK, June 11, 2013 > > > US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald > > Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to > media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. > > AP Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to > media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. > > The man who claimed to leak state secrets on U.S. government > eavesdropping sought to break the story through a columnist for a > U.K.-based publication who has made no secret of his distaste for > intrusions on privacy. > > Edward Snowden brought his information to Glenn Greenwald of /The > Guardian/ instead of to the /Washington Post/, with which he had briefly > corresponded. The case illustrates the passion an opinion-driven > journalist can bring to a breaking news story; at the same time it > raises questions about fairness. > > Mr. Greenwald, author of three books in which he argues the government > has trampled on personal rights in the name of protecting national > security, wrote the original stories exposing the extent of the > government's data collection. Over the weekend, he identified > intelligence contractor Snowden as his source at the latter's request, > and said more stories are coming. > > "What we disclosed was of great public interest, of great importance in > a democracy, that the U.S. government is building this massive spying > apparatus aimed at its own population," Mr. Greenwald said on Monday on > /MSNBC/'s "Morning Joe." > > Mr. Greenwald also told The Associated Press that he's been contacted by > "countless people" over the last 24 hours offering to create legal > defence funds for Mr. Snowden. > > The topic is personal for Mr. Greenwald (46). The former constitutional > and civil rights lawyer, educated at the New York University Law School, > began the "Unclaimed Territory" blog in 2005 and wrote "How Would a > Patriot Act?" a year later. The book criticized the Bush administration > for its use of executive power. > > Mr. Greenwald, now based in Brazil, wrote a regular column for /Salon/ > for five years until joining /The Guardian/ last year. > > Elaborating on the surveillance programme, he wrote, one programme > collects hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. The second > programme takes in audio, email and other electronic activities > primarily by non-U.S. nationals who use providers such as Microsoft and > Apple. Mr. Greenwald described the collection of phone records on Monday > as "rampant abuse and it needs sunlight. That's why this person came > forward and that's why we published our stories. > > On "Morning Joe," he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using > "Obama talking points" when she challenged him with a question. > > "The wall of secrecy behind which they operate is impenetrable and it is > a real menace to democracy," said Mr. Greenwald, who won a 2010 Online > Journalism Association award for his coverage of Bradley Manning, who is > charged with giving classified documents to WikiLeaks. > > Mr. Snowden, however, had not just gone to Mr. Greenwald with his > information. Barton Gellman of /The Washington Post/ wrote on Sunday > that Mr. Snowden had contacted him about the story. He said Mr. Snowden > had asked that the /Post/ to publish within 72 hours the full contents > of a presentation he had made about the collection of electronic > activity from the Silicon Valley companies. > > Mr. Gellman said the /Post/ would not make any guarantees and sought the > government's views about whether the information would harm national > security. The /Post/ eventually agreed to publish a small sample of what > Mr. Snowden was offering, but Mr. Snowden backed away, writing that "I > regret that we weren't able to keep this project unilateral," Mr. > Gellman wrote. > > Mr. Greenwald's clear point of view doesn't necessarily weaken the > story, said Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University and > author of the /Press Think/ blog. > > "In many ways it strengthens it," he said. Mr. Greenwald has a clear > stance on privacy and national security, but they aren't partisan; he's > criticized Democratic President Barack Obama and his Republican > predecessor, George W. Bush. Journalists with strong viewpoints, is a > tradition with a long history in the U.S., Mr. Rosen said. > > "The fact that sources now may choose (outlets) on the basis of > commitment is a fact and journalists whose professional stance is no > commitment may find themselves at a disadvantage," he said. > > Mr. Greenwald's known feelings on the issue "does leave a little opening > for critics," said Ellen Shearer, head of the national security > journalism initiative at Northwestern University. There's always a risk > that such passion can work against a journalist; some people would worry > that facts contradictory to a predisposed belief could be overlooked. > > To this point, Mr. Shearer said there's been little pushback on the > facts, with the debate primarily about whether the information should be > published. > > Intelligence officials are investigating the leak and its impact on its > programs. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the > revelation of the intelligence-gathering programmes reckless and said it > has done "huge, grave damage." > > /The Guardian/ took care not to publish material that may help other > countries improve their eavesdropping or could put the lives of covert > agents at risk, Mr. Greenwald said. > > "We've published these things they marked 'top secret' that don't > actually harm national security but conceal what they've done from the > public," he said. > > Keywords: Glenn Greenwald > , > > US surveillance leak > , > > Edward Snowden > , > > right to privacy > , > > U.S. electronic snooping > , > > US NSA programme > , > > > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nyangkweagien at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:49:37 2013 From: nyangkweagien at gmail.com (Nyangkwe Agien Aaron) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:49:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald In-Reply-To: References: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: Riaz Stream media know their place because he who pays the piper dictates the music. Reason why social media garners more clout these days. Aaron On 6/11/13, Nyangkwe Agien Aaron wrote: > A clear sign that the USSR has it nemesis in the USA. > > On 6/11/13, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >> [haha the WashPo asks the govt before it publishes info... Eat >> your heart our China... the US runs a tight ship... its ideology >> that allows a 'scoop' to be second guessed by the state... - no >> aristocracy but boy does the mainstream media know their place! ] >> >> >> >> International » >> World >> >> NEW YORK, June 11, 2013 >> >> >> US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald >> >> Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to >> media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. >> >> AP Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to >> media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. >> >> The man who claimed to leak state secrets on U.S. government >> eavesdropping sought to break the story through a columnist for a >> U.K.-based publication who has made no secret of his distaste for >> intrusions on privacy. >> >> Edward Snowden brought his information to Glenn Greenwald of /The >> Guardian/ instead of to the /Washington Post/, with which he had briefly >> corresponded. The case illustrates the passion an opinion-driven >> journalist can bring to a breaking news story; at the same time it >> raises questions about fairness. >> >> Mr. Greenwald, author of three books in which he argues the government >> has trampled on personal rights in the name of protecting national >> security, wrote the original stories exposing the extent of the >> government's data collection. Over the weekend, he identified >> intelligence contractor Snowden as his source at the latter's request, >> and said more stories are coming. >> >> "What we disclosed was of great public interest, of great importance in >> a democracy, that the U.S. government is building this massive spying >> apparatus aimed at its own population," Mr. Greenwald said on Monday on >> /MSNBC/'s "Morning Joe." >> >> Mr. Greenwald also told The Associated Press that he's been contacted by >> "countless people" over the last 24 hours offering to create legal >> defence funds for Mr. Snowden. >> >> The topic is personal for Mr. Greenwald (46). The former constitutional >> and civil rights lawyer, educated at the New York University Law School, >> began the "Unclaimed Territory" blog in 2005 and wrote "How Would a >> Patriot Act?" a year later. The book criticized the Bush administration >> for its use of executive power. >> >> Mr. Greenwald, now based in Brazil, wrote a regular column for /Salon/ >> for five years until joining /The Guardian/ last year. >> >> Elaborating on the surveillance programme, he wrote, one programme >> collects hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. The second >> programme takes in audio, email and other electronic activities >> primarily by non-U.S. nationals who use providers such as Microsoft and >> Apple. Mr. Greenwald described the collection of phone records on Monday >> as "rampant abuse and it needs sunlight. That's why this person came >> forward and that's why we published our stories. >> >> On "Morning Joe," he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using >> "Obama talking points" when she challenged him with a question. >> >> "The wall of secrecy behind which they operate is impenetrable and it is >> a real menace to democracy," said Mr. Greenwald, who won a 2010 Online >> Journalism Association award for his coverage of Bradley Manning, who is >> charged with giving classified documents to WikiLeaks. >> >> Mr. Snowden, however, had not just gone to Mr. Greenwald with his >> information. Barton Gellman of /The Washington Post/ wrote on Sunday >> that Mr. Snowden had contacted him about the story. He said Mr. Snowden >> had asked that the /Post/ to publish within 72 hours the full contents >> of a presentation he had made about the collection of electronic >> activity from the Silicon Valley companies. >> >> Mr. Gellman said the /Post/ would not make any guarantees and sought the >> government's views about whether the information would harm national >> security. The /Post/ eventually agreed to publish a small sample of what >> Mr. Snowden was offering, but Mr. Snowden backed away, writing that "I >> regret that we weren't able to keep this project unilateral," Mr. >> Gellman wrote. >> >> Mr. Greenwald's clear point of view doesn't necessarily weaken the >> story, said Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University and >> author of the /Press Think/ blog. >> >> "In many ways it strengthens it," he said. Mr. Greenwald has a clear >> stance on privacy and national security, but they aren't partisan; he's >> criticized Democratic President Barack Obama and his Republican >> predecessor, George W. Bush. Journalists with strong viewpoints, is a >> tradition with a long history in the U.S., Mr. Rosen said. >> >> "The fact that sources now may choose (outlets) on the basis of >> commitment is a fact and journalists whose professional stance is no >> commitment may find themselves at a disadvantage," he said. >> >> Mr. Greenwald's known feelings on the issue "does leave a little opening >> for critics," said Ellen Shearer, head of the national security >> journalism initiative at Northwestern University. There's always a risk >> that such passion can work against a journalist; some people would worry >> that facts contradictory to a predisposed belief could be overlooked. >> >> To this point, Mr. Shearer said there's been little pushback on the >> facts, with the debate primarily about whether the information should be >> published. >> >> Intelligence officials are investigating the leak and its impact on its >> programs. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the >> revelation of the intelligence-gathering programmes reckless and said it >> has done "huge, grave damage." >> >> /The Guardian/ took care not to publish material that may help other >> countries improve their eavesdropping or could put the lives of covert >> agents at risk, Mr. Greenwald said. >> >> "We've published these things they marked 'top secret' that don't >> actually harm national security but conceal what they've done from the >> public," he said. >> >> Keywords: Glenn Greenwald >> , >> >> US surveillance leak >> , >> >> Edward Snowden >> , >> >> right to privacy >> , >> >> U.S. electronic snooping >> , >> >> US NSA programme >> , >> >> >> > > > -- > Aaron Agien Nyangkwe > Journalist-OutCome Mapper > P.O.Box 5213 > Douala-Cameroon > Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 > -- Aaron Agien Nyangkwe Journalist-OutCome Mapper P.O.Box 5213 Douala-Cameroon Telephone +237 73 42 71 27 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 09:49:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:49:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> <51B7224E.1090304@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B72AFC.2070603@gmail.com> Sincere apologies as discussed and clarified below. On 2013/06/11 04:26 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > You assume you know my politics. True. For this I unreservedly apologise. FYI and going forward when I state *explicit/implicit* in the view it means how I read it from my perspective. That is, what is the political effect of your position. > You ascribe opinions to me that are not true. As above. And again, apologies for not being careful in dealing with the politics that flow from your analysis in my worldview as distinct from what you specifically said. > You assume you speak for billions of people. No I don't. I presume to speak for myself but from within the well developed post-colonial analytic of Third Worldism (different from McTim's fyi). Arguing for universality of Human Rights is making common cause with billions of people who have rights to privacy. > You insult Afghans. 'We are all Afghans now' much like 'we are all blacks' is a positive thing: to be oppressed gives one rights to claims for justice. . . but I can see how this can be easily misunderstood... so apologies. > Worst of all you assume as a Canadian I automatically agree with US policy. That was not the intent, but on balance I agree that overall that is a valid reading. Unreserved apologies. To be clear on my point:- an American solution (Congressional or other US oversight) to this in relation to Internet Governance will be insufficient for a Global resource like the Internet. > I am more than willing to engage in constructive debate on the issues. Your post was not constructive. Au contraire. The tone and above points may have been out of order, but it was addressing substantive issues - asking for a broader world view. A view rigorously denied appropriate space on this list until recently. Even though you sometimes make common cause with people who seek to push Third Worldists around, you have decorum and I cannot apologise enough to you about the tenor of my response (not excluding the apologies above). > It was condescending. Apologies, I should be more on guard. But so you are clear... the politics that flow from your positions are fair game for analysis, critique and deconstruction. > > Kerry Brown > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Riaz K Tayob [mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com] >> Sent: June-11-13 6:13 AM >> To: Kerry Brown >> Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance >> program >> >> Could you please clarify why this is the case? >> >> On 2013/06/11 04:01 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >>> I am offended by this post. >>> >>> Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 09:54:42 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:24:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> Also noteworthy - about the point of willing cooperation or not - that Google fails to mention this stuff in its so called transparency report... What is the justification for that... On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were > ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was > (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. > > The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with > global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active > purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post > and the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is > that the other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no > protection under these laws. They/we are `fair game`. > > In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national > laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly > effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has been > demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European context > and as is currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian > Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these > surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the US > security panic we are all under suspicion until proven innocent); with > by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s innocence in any > lasting way. > > M > > *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It > will never be taken seriously. > > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated > willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries > of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a > far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, > some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data > from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If we are going to > express opinions and speculation we need to call out that we are doing > that. > > Kerry Brown > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which > the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense > surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based > companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, > Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic > human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US > government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' > vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled > that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the > main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any > such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what > about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the > 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US > government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double > talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is > discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – > from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get > implicated? > > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global > companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in > cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. > Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the > kind of options that may have been available to these other companies > as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing > government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on > their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have > not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. > > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and > these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby > these companies help further US government's political, military, etc > interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political > might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these > Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the > US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest > possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU > countries. > > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council > calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It > should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable > norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal > frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online > spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and > economic rights. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 10:10:05 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:10:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Sen Feinstein open to hearings on surveillance program In-Reply-To: <51B72AFC.2070603@gmail.com> References: <51B6CAE9.7000906@gmail.com> <51B7224E.1090304@gmail.com> <51B72AFC.2070603@gmail.com> Message-ID: Apology accepted. Thank you. Kerry Brown Apologies, I should be more on guard. But so you are clear... the politics that flow from your positions are fair game for analysis, critique and deconstruction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 10:09:33 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:09:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B7248A.6020707@itforchange.net> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <51B7248A.6020707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:22 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 06:24 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will > never be taken seriously. > > > Taken seriously by whom? We are addressing it to the public in general, and > people are dead serious horrified by what they are coming to know of. > > BTW, I took that expression 'horror' from Nick's email, and if you arent > really horrified by what happened, I must say you are among the very few.... > > In just one month of March 2013, 6.7 billion pieces of intelligence were > picked up by the 'system' from India's computers and networks .... And you > are saying that 'horror' is too strong a word!! http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/indias-big-brother-the-central-monitoring-system So let's call out all gov'ts who are spying on us. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 11 10:14:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:44:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B730D3.2020705@itforchange.net> See Hillary Clinton's speech of 2010 http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/21/clinton.internet/index.html To quote The Internet and other technologies are critical to foreign policy, and those who engage in cyber attacks should face international condemnation, she said. "In an interconnected world, an attack on one nation's networks can be an attack on all," she said at The Newseum in Washington. Clinton made the comments as search-engine giant Google threatened to shut down its operations in China, five years after agreeing to allow some censorship in exchange for the right to work in that country's massive emerging technology market. Google charges that Chinese hackers have targeted Google and up to 34 other companies. (quote ends) Is not unauthorised picking up of more than 6 billion pieces of information from Indian computers and networks in a single month an attack on "one nation's networks".... Exactly similar to what is presented as China having done to Google (here too information was picked up in an unathourised manner, and not physical damage to networks or anything else was done) Do we still have doubts about US's hypocrisy?? parminder On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:24 PM, parminder wrote: > > Also noteworthy - about the point of willing cooperation or not - that > Google fails to mention this stuff in its so called transparency > report... What is the justification for that... > > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were >> ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was >> (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. >> >> The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with >> global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active >> purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your >> post and the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address >> is that the other (non-US) users of these services have essentially >> no protection under these laws. They/we are `fair game`. >> >> In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national >> laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly >> effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has been >> demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European context >> and as is currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian >> Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these >> surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the US >> security panic we are all under suspicion until proven innocent); >> with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s innocence in >> any lasting way. >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be >> accomplished? >> >> The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It >> will never be taken seriously. >> >> There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated >> willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the >> boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. >> I think a far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of >> methods, some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably >> includes data from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If >> we are going to express opinions and speculation we need to call out >> that we are doing that. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which >> the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense >> surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based >> companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, >> Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of >> basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US >> government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic >> role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further >> troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related >> disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they >> would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non >> US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they >> are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain >> frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet >> governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical >> management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of >> privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to >> economic and social rights - get implicated? >> >> We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global >> companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, >> YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in >> cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. >> Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the >> kind of options that may have been available to these other companies >> as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing >> government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on >> their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have >> not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. >> >> We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and >> these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby >> these companies help further US government's political, military, etc >> interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political >> might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these >> Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the >> US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest >> possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by >> EU countries. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council >> calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It >> should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable >> norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal >> frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online >> spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and >> economic rights. >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 10:35:15 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 07:35:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Launched: stopwatching.us Message-ID: <1370961315.71936.YahooMailNeo@web120103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>  For folks who might be interested: http://www.stopwatching.us has been launched. Nnenna Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 10:52:08 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:52:08 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Parminder, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > Also noteworthy - about the point of willing cooperation or not - that > Google fails to mention this stuff in its so called transparency report... > What is the justification for that... > > Unfortunately the answer is pretty simple: they are prohibited by US law to mention this kind of requests. Whether this is something appropriate is another matter, but it is US laws. B. > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were > ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a > US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. **** > > ** ** > > The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with > global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active > purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and > the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the > other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under > these laws. They/we are `fair game`. **** > > ** ** > > In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws > but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective > influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in > various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently > being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we > are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the > current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until > proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s > innocence in any lasting way.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [ > mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] > *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > **** > > ** ** > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will > never be taken seriously.**** > > ** ** > > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated > willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of > the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more > likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly > illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned > companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and > speculation we need to call out that we are doing that.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry Brown**** > > ** ** > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling)**** > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the > global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense > surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies > like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and > Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it > exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special > global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of > the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on > the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say > that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the > non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they > are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently > heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why > the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is > discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from > political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? > **** > > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - > Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple > – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US > government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to > have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been > available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these > companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access > to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, > which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. **** > > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these > US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies > help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide > and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of > ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good > example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and > US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, > against considerable resistance by EU countries. **** > > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls > for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also > proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles > on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process > that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political > rights as well as social and economic rights. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 10:58:17 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:58:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Michael raises an interesting point: the extra-territorial extension of US sovereignty by leveraging the presence of major platforms on US soil. Just as a reminder, this Recommendation of the Council of Europe in 2011stated (emphasis added): *1.1. No harm* 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that *their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet*. 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic. *1.2. Co-operation* States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. The principle of the responsibility of States for transboundary impact of their national decisions is a very important one that should be strengthened. I understand the Council of Europe is preparing a conference in the fall on that topic. Best Bertrand On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were > ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a > US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. **** > > ** ** > > The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with > global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active > purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and > the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the > other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under > these laws. They/we are `fair game`. **** > > ** ** > > In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws > but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective > influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in > various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently > being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we > are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the > current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until > proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s > innocence in any lasting way.**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > **** > > ** ** > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will > never be taken seriously.**** > > ** ** > > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated > willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of > the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more > likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly > illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned > companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and > speculation we need to call out that we are doing that.**** > > ** ** > > Kerry Brown**** > > ** ** > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling)**** > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the > global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense > surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies > like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and > Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it > exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special > global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of > the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on > the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say > that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the > non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they > are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently > heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why > the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is > discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from > political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? > **** > > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - > Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple > – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US > government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to > have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been > available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these > companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access > to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, > which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. **** > > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these > US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies > help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide > and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of > ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good > example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and > US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, > against considerable resistance by EU countries. **** > > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls > for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also > proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles > on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process > that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political > rights as well as social and economic rights. **** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:09:44 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:39:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: While there are discrete "yes", "no" and "dont know" options, we're likely to see a lot more support for a "don't care" option. Fair few people don't honestly care what goes on in the government. Also in the "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable", the choice of "Irrelevant" would garner a lot of attention. IMHO a lot of people just want to stay out of politics/government/conspiracy/etc - they just want to "not care" and treat it as "irrelevant". Given this choice, fair few people (at least 10-20% of those who voted under other categories, and maybe a 100% of those who abstained) would choose "don't care" or "irrelevant". Just my 2c. -C On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > [image: Tyler Durden's picture] > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, > a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National > Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions > of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation > intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry > Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep > have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why > they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > > > > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The > Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no > indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of > phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about > the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting > personal privacy.* > > It just gets better: > > > *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to > investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal > privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to > intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate > possible terrorist threats.* > > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey in January > 2006. > Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: > 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate > terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of > Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.”* > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records > of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully > 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate > suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails > without court approval. > > > > > > > > > *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it > was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected terrorists.* > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey > totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* > > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, > compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:19:31 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:19:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Are you Kidding or what? 100 people? On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > While there are discrete "yes", "no" and "dont know" options, we're likely > to see a lot more support for a "don't care" option. Fair few people don't > honestly care what goes on in the government. Also in the "Acceptable" and > "Unacceptable", the choice of "Irrelevant" would garner a lot of attention. > IMHO a lot of people just want to stay out of > politics/government/conspiracy/etc - they just want to "not care" and treat > it as "irrelevant". > > Given this choice, fair few people (at least 10-20% of those who voted > under other categories, and maybe a 100% of those who abstained) would > choose "don't care" or "irrelevant". > > Just my 2c. > > -C > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >> [image: Tyler Durden's picture] >> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >> >> >> In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of >> the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, >> a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National >> Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions >> of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate >> terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation >> intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry >> Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep >> have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why >> they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >> >> >> >> >> More from Pew: >> >> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The >> Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no >> indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of >> phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about >> the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting >> personal privacy.* >> >> It just gets better: >> >> >> *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to >> investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal >> privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to >> intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate >> possible terrorist threats.* >> >> >> >> These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post >> survey in January >> 2006. >> Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: >> 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate >> terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of >> Republicans and 59% of independents. >> >> >> >> However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more >> important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young >> people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while >> 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal >> privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >> >> The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the >> NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall >> public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it >> is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track >> telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate >> terrorism.”* >> >> In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush >> administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the >> NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by >> secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some >> people in the United States and other countries, without first getting >> court approval to do so.” >> >> Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" >> pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. >> And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >> >> Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two >> operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is >> acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records >> of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully >> 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate >> suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails >> without court approval. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to >> 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it >> was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of >> suspected terrorists.* >> >> Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a >> stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >> >> Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey >> totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four >> follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned >> with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the >> victor of Dancing with the Stars. >> >> *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news >> about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is >> a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they >> are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following >> not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* >> >> >> >> Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online >> activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very >> closely, 33% not closely at all. >> >> >> >> Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and >> Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the >> government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest >> is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting >> email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and >> Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >> >> >> >> Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are >> following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. >> Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be >> unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% >> among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports >> about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those >> who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, >> compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >> >> Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >> >> >> As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your >> life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if >> the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its >> rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >> Average: >> 4.52 >> Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:22:12 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:22:12 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > [image: Tyler Durden's picture] > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, > a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National > Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions > of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation > intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry > Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep > have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why > they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > > > > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The > Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no > indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of > phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about > the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting > personal privacy.* > > It just gets better: > > > *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to > investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal > privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to > intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate > possible terrorist threats.* > > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey in January > 2006. > Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: > 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate > terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of > Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.”* > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records > of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully > 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate > suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails > without court approval. > > > > > > > > > *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it > was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected terrorists.* > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey > totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* > > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, > compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:24:00 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:54:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: It's a percentage Simon :) On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > Are you Kidding or what? 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> While there are discrete "yes", "no" and "dont know" options, we're >> likely to see a lot more support for a "don't care" option. Fair few people >> don't honestly care what goes on in the government. Also in the >> "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable", the choice of "Irrelevant" would garner a >> lot of attention. IMHO a lot of people just want to stay out of >> politics/government/conspiracy/etc - they just want to "not care" and treat >> it as "irrelevant". >> >> Given this choice, fair few people (at least 10-20% of those who voted >> under other categories, and maybe a 100% of those who abstained) would >> choose "don't care" or "irrelevant". >> >> Just my 2c. >> >> -C >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >>> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >>> [image: Tyler Durden's picture] >>> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >>> >>> >>> In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of >>> the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, >>> a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National >>> Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions >>> of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate >>> terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation >>> intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry >>> Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The >>> sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which >>> is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully >>> deserve. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> More from Pew: >>> >>> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The >>> Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no >>> indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of >>> phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about >>> the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting >>> personal privacy.* >>> >>> It just gets better: >>> >>> >>> *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to >>> investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal >>> privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to >>> intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate >>> possible terrorist threats.* >>> >>> >>> >>> These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post >>> survey in January >>> 2006. >>> Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: >>> 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate >>> terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of >>> Republicans and 59% of independents. >>> >>> >>> >>> However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more >>> important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young >>> people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while >>> 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal >>> privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >>> >>> The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the >>> NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall >>> public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it >>> is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track >>> telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate >>> terrorism.”* >>> >>> In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush >>> administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the >>> NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by >>> secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some >>> people in the United States and other countries, without first getting >>> court approval to do so.” >>> >>> Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" >>> pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. >>> And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >>> >>> Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two >>> operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is >>> acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records >>> of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully >>> 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate >>> suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails >>> without court approval. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% >>> to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said >>> it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of >>> suspected terrorists.* >>> >>> Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a >>> stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >>> >>> Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey >>> totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four >>> follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned >>> with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the >>> victor of Dancing with the Stars. >>> >>> *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news >>> about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is >>> a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they >>> are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following >>> not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* >>> >>> >>> >>> Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online >>> activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very >>> closely, 33% not closely at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and >>> Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the >>> government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of >>> Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest >>> is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting >>> email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and >>> Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of >>> Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >>> >>> >>> >>> Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are >>> following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. >>> Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be >>> unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% >>> among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports >>> about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those >>> who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, >>> compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >>> >>> Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >>> >>> >>> As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your >>> life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if >>> the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its >>> rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >>> Average: >>> 4.52 >>> Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:28:20 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:28:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> Bertrand, this seems to refer primarily to access issues rather than surveillance issues, or am I misinterpreting? And if I`m not, is it likely that the meeting being called for will deal with the surveillance issues that have recently come to the fore? M From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:58 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Kerry Brown Subject: Re: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? Michael raises an interesting point: the extra-territorial extension of US sovereignty by leveraging the presence of major platforms on US soil. Just as a reminder, this Recommendation of the Council of Europe in 2011 stated (emphasis added): 1.1. No harm 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic. 1.2. Co-operation States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. The principle of the responsibility of States for transboundary impact of their national decisions is a very important one that should be strengthened. I understand the Council of Europe is preparing a conference in the fall on that topic. Best Bertrand On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under these laws. They/we are `fair game`. In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s innocence in any lasting way. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will never be taken seriously. There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. Kerry Brown (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU countries. The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 11:29:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:59:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and the questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to eliminate interviewer bias, among other things --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >> >> >> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >> >> >> In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >> >> <6-10-13-1.png> >> >> More from Pew: >> >> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. >> >> It just gets better: >> >> <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. >> >> >> >> These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. >> >> >> >> However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >> >> The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” >> >> In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” >> >> Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >> >> Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. >> >> >> >> <6-10-13-4.png> >> >> >> >> Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. >> >> Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >> >> Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. >> >> Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. >> >> >> >> Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. >> >> >> >> Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >> >> >> >> Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >> >> Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >> >> As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >> >> Average: >> 4.52 >> Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 11 11:30:20 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:30:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ ABOUT THE SURVEY The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States ... etc etc Pew's considered good. Adam On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > <6-10-13-1.png> > > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. > > It just gets better: > > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. > > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > > Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 11:35:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:05:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <61FC71DF-D14C-4E18-9757-19963374D591@hserus.net> It can very well be made to cover surveillance, given the emphasis on human rights and international law. In fact the buzz surrounding this issue makes it practically certain that this will be discussed in more than one such forum. In any case, extra territorial application of a country's law on citizens of a foreign country, without consultation and acquiescence from the foreign country's government, tends to be frowned upon. There is nothing in the restricted view of prism that we have to see if this has been done or not I must thank Bertrand for forwarding this, it is quite relevant in another discussion I have been having elsewhere, on the extra territorial application of US civil law in Internet related cases --srs (iPad) On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:58, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Bertrand, this seems to refer primarily to access issues rather than surveillance issues, or am I misinterpreting? And if I`m not, is it likely that the meeting being called for will deal with the surveillance issues that have recently come to the fore? > > M > > From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:58 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: Kerry Brown > Subject: Re: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > > Michael raises an interesting point: the extra-territorial extension of US sovereignty by leveraging the presence of major platforms on US soil. > > Just as a reminder, this Recommendation of the Council of Europe in 2011 stated (emphasis added): > 1.1. No harm > > 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the standards recognised in international human rights law and with the principles of international law, that their actions do not have an adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. > > 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic. > > 1.2. Co-operation > > States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet. > > The principle of the responsibility of States for transboundary impact of their national decisions is a very important one that should be strengthened. I understand the Council of Europe is preparing a conference in the fall on that topic. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. > > The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under these laws. They/we are `fair game`. > > In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s innocence in any lasting way. > > M > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Kerry Brown > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will never be taken seriously. > > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. > > Kerry Brown > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, against considerable resistance by EU countries. > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political rights as well as social and economic rights. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:35:35 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:35:35 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: 1,004 is by no means a statistically sound representation of the number of people living in the USA. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ > > ABOUT THE SURVEY > The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted > June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or > older living in the continental United States ... etc etc > > > Pew's considered good. > > Adam > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > > > > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a > substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security > Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions > of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, > investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: > you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and > thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get > precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > > > <6-10-13-1.png> > > > > More from Pew: > > > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington > Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last > week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and > internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff > between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. > > > > It just gets better: > > > > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal > government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes > on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government > not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to > investigate possible terrorist threats. > > > > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest > partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more > important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the > expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of > independents. > > > > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the > NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.” > > > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court approval to do so.” > > > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records > of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully > 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate > suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails > without court approval. > > > > > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > > > > > Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it > was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected terrorists. > > > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey > totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > > > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. > > > > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, > compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > > > > Average: > > 4.52 > > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Simon Ontoyin > > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > > Tel: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:37:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:07:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> Message-ID: +2 On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and > the questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to > eliminate interviewer bias, among other things > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > >> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >> >> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >> >> >> In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of >> the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, >> a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National >> Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions >> of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate >> terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation >> intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry >> Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep >> have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why >> they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >> >> <6-10-13-1.png> >> >> More from Pew: >> >> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The >> Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no >> indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of >> phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about >> the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting >> personal privacy.* >> >> It just gets better: >> >> <6-10-13-3.png> >> *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to >> investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal >> privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to >> intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate >> possible terrorist threats.* >> >> >> >> These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post >> survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. >> Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: >> 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate >> terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of >> Republicans and 59% of independents. >> >> >> >> However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more >> important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young >> people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while >> 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal >> privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >> >> The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the >> NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall >> public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it >> is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track >> telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate >> terrorism.”* >> >> In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush >> administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the >> NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by >> secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some >> people in the United States and other countries, without first getting >> court approval to do so.” >> >> Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" >> pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. >> And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >> >> Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two >> operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is >> acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records >> of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully >> 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate >> suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails >> without court approval. >> >> >> >> <6-10-13-4.png> >> >> >> >> *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to >> 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it >> was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of >> suspected terrorists.* >> >> Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a >> stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >> >> Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey >> totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four >> follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned >> with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the >> victor of Dancing with the Stars. >> >> *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news >> about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is >> a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they >> are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following >> not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* >> >> >> >> Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online >> activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very >> closely, 33% not closely at all. >> >> >> >> Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and >> Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the >> government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest >> is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting >> email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and >> Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >> >> >> >> Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are >> following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. >> Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be >> unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% >> among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports >> about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those >> who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, >> compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >> >> Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >> >> >> As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your >> life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if >> the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its >> rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >> Average: >> 4.52 >> Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:38:08 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 21:08:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Or most countries for that matter, its basically a joke :) On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > 1,004 is by no means a statistically sound representation of the number of > people living in the USA. > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> >> http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ >> >> ABOUT THE SURVEY >> The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted >> June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or >> older living in the continental United States ... etc etc >> >> >> Pew's considered good. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: >> >> > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob >> wrote: >> > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >> > >> > >> > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >> > >> > >> > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of >> the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a >> substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security >> Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions >> of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate >> terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, >> investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: >> you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and >> thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get >> precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >> > >> > <6-10-13-1.png> >> > >> > More from Pew: >> > >> > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The >> Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no >> indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of >> phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about >> the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting >> personal privacy. >> > >> > It just gets better: >> > >> > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal >> government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes >> on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government >> not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to >> investigate possible terrorist threats. >> > >> > >> > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post >> survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest >> partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more >> important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the >> expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of >> independents. >> > >> > >> > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more >> important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young >> people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while >> 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal >> privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >> > >> > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the >> NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall >> public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is >> acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track >> telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate >> terrorism.” >> > >> > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush >> administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the >> NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by >> secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some >> people in the United States and other countries, without first getting >> court approval to do so.” >> > >> > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to >> "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent >> defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common >> sense. >> > >> > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two >> operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is >> acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records >> of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully >> 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate >> suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails >> without court approval. >> > >> > >> > <6-10-13-4.png> >> > >> > >> > Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to >> 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it >> was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of >> suspected terrorists. >> > >> > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a >> stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >> > >> > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey >> totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four >> follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned >> with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the >> victor of Dancing with the Stars. >> > >> > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about >> the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a >> relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are >> following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not >> too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. >> > >> > >> > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online >> activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very >> closely, 33% not closely at all. >> > >> > >> > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and >> Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the >> government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest >> is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting >> email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and >> Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of >> Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >> > >> > >> > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are >> following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. >> Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be >> unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% >> among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports >> about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those >> who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, >> compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >> > >> > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >> > >> > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your >> life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if >> the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its >> rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >> > >> > Average: >> > 4.52 >> > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Simon Ontoyin >> > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited >> > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com >> > Tel: >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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: >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:37:21 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 11:37:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Article on new barriers for net neutrality in Brazil Message-ID: The fight over net neutrality in Brazil: a new and taller bump in the road for #MarcoCivil Full post available at infojustice.org/archives/29859 "On May 23, Brazil’s federal communications commission – ANATEL – passed a resolution with sweeping implications for internet service provision, net neutrality, and regulatory power. Resolution 614/2013 extends ANATEL’s regulatory reach from its traditional home in telecommunications systems all the way into the provision of internet services. This extension and others like it can significantly impact the internet access market in Brazil. These over-reaches also pose serious challenges to net neutrality policies pending in the Marco Civil legislation (known internationally as Brazil’s “Constitution for the Internet”)." By Carolina Rossini Carolinarossini.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nne75 at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 11:50:26 2013 From: nne75 at yahoo.com (Nnenna) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:50:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> If such a study was conducted in China with 5000 respondents... What will your conclusion be? Just asking N   Nnenna  Nwakanma |  Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG  |  Consultants Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax  224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com ________________________________ From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: Simon Ontoyin ; Riaz K Tayob Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:37 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds +2 On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and the questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to eliminate interviewer bias, among other things > >--srs (iPad) > >On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > >A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >> >> >> >>On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> >>Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >>> >>>Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >>> >>> >>> >>>In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >>><6-10-13-1.png> >>>More from Pew: >>>The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. >>>It just gets better: >>><6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. >>>>  >>>>These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. >>>>  >>>>However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >>>>The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” >>>>In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” >>>Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >>>Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. >>>>  >>>><6-10-13-4.png> >>>>  >>>>Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. >>>Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >>>Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. >>>Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest.  Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. >>>>  >>>>Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. >>>>  >>>>Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >>>>  >>>>Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >>>Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >>>As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >>>Average: >>>4.52 >>>Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>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 >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>-- >> >>Simon Ontoyin >>Director, Exigency Ghana Limited  >>Email: exigencygh at gmail.com >>Tel:  >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >>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: >     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:     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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 11:54:44 2013 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:54:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Good question. The principle is very large and the wording refers to *access and use*. One could consider that extensive surveillance of foreign correspondence is affecting use. But it may be a stretch. Furthermore, it is clear that surveillance has usually been conducted outside of the scope of traditional oversights and international conventions, let alone mere recommendations like this one. That being said, the functioning of the Internet provides much more available data hosted on major operators and the principle of non transboundary harm should be explored as an overall approach, or at least the notion of responsibility for transboundary impact of national actions. I don't know whether surveillance is intended as a topic for the fall conference. A lot of facts regarding the current issue will have been clarified by then. B. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Bertrand, this seems to refer primarily to access issues rather than > surveillance issues, or am I misinterpreting? And if I`m not, is it likely > that the meeting being called for will deal with the surveillance issues > that have recently come to the fore?**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:58 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > *Cc:* Kerry Brown > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > **** > > ** ** > > Michael raises an interesting point: the extra-territorial extension of US > sovereignty by leveraging the presence of major platforms on US soil. **** > > ** ** > > Just as a reminder, this Recommendation of the Council of Europe in 2011stated (emphasis added): > **** > > *1.1. No harm***** > > 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the > standards recognised in international human rights law and with the > principles of international law, that *their actions do not have an > adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet*.**** > > 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure > that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately > interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or > negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.**** > > *1.2. Co-operation***** > > States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant > stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of > Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact > on access to and use of the Internet.**** > > The principle of the responsibility of States for transboundary impact of > their national decisions is a very important one that should be > strengthened. I understand the Council of Europe is preparing a conference > in the fall on that topic. **** > > ** ** > > Best**** > > ** ** > > Bertrand**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, michael gurstein > wrote:**** > > The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were > ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a > US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. **** > > **** > > The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with > global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active > purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and > the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the > other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under > these laws. They/we are `fair game`. **** > > **** > > In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws > but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective > influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in > various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently > being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we > are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the > current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until > proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s > innocence in any lasting way.**** > > **** > > M**** > > **** > > *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: > governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? > **** > > **** > > The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will > never be taken seriously.**** > > **** > > There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated > willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of > the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more > likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly > illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned > companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and > speculation we need to call out that we are doing that.**** > > **** > > Kerry Brown**** > > **** > > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling)**** > > The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the > global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense > surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies > like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and > Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it > exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special > global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of > the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on > the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say > that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the > non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they > are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently > heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why > the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is > discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from > political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? > **** > > We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - > Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple > – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US > government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to > have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been > available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these > companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access > to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, > which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. **** > > We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these > US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies > help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide > and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of > ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good > example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and > US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, > against considerable resistance by EU countries. **** > > The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls > for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also > proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles > on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process > that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political > rights as well as social and economic rights. **** > > **** > > **** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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**** > > > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle**** > > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy > (www.internetjurisdiction.net)**** > > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")**** > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy ( www.internetjurisdiction.net) Member, ICANN Board of Directors Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 11 11:58:48 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 00:58:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Nnenna wrote: > If such a study was conducted in China with 5000 respondents... > > What will your conclusion be? > If it was conducted by a well known and well respected firm, probably something like "that's interesting". Think it really depends on the source. Adam > > Just asking > > N > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ________________________________ > From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Cc: Simon Ontoyin ; Riaz K Tayob > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:37 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, > Pew Study Finds > > +2 > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and the > questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to eliminate > interviewer bias, among other things > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a > substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security > Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of > Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." > Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, > investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: > you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and > thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get > precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > <6-10-13-1.png> > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington > Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last > week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and > internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff > between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. > > It just gets better: > > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal > government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes > on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government > not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to > investigate possible terrorist threats. > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey > in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan > differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for > the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of > personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.” > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court > approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable > for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions > of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of > Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected > terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court > approval. > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. > In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was > unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected > terrorists. > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey > totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with > who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor > of Dancing with the Stars. > > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the > government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats > and Democratic-leaners. > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who > say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared > with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life > to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the > slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 12:12:52 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:12:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? Message-ID: The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly so people don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more open and transparent. Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won't change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American government's access to private data? Many of the services that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies subject to American law. Much of the world's Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder the US governments' ability to collect data from the Internet. These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Jun 11 12:12:55 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:12:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B74C87.9010903@cafonso.ca> Yes, it is a percentage of course, but this raises the question of what is a suitable sample to measure the whims and opinions of about 300 million people. We have this ongoing discussion in BR (a country with 200 million folks) on polling samples regarding the national elections we have every two years (a wonderful exacerbation of democracy). Statistical techniques may assure us that they are capable of measuring a universe by relatively very small samples (very very small in this case: a thousand in 300 million). This may be true if, first of all, the statistician running the poll is competent and absolutely neutral. Given this, there is the sample definition model. So anyone might have reasons to doubt the sampling polls. Reality usually runs over perfect technical models, as is the case of the IPv6 transition, the case of frictionless mechanics and so on... []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/11/2013 12:24 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > It's a percentage Simon :) > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > >> Are you Kidding or what? 100 people? >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < >> chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> While there are discrete "yes", "no" and "dont know" options, we're >>> likely to see a lot more support for a "don't care" option. Fair few people >>> don't honestly care what goes on in the government. Also in the >>> "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable", the choice of "Irrelevant" would garner a >>> lot of attention. IMHO a lot of people just want to stay out of >>> politics/government/conspiracy/etc - they just want to "not care" and treat >>> it as "irrelevant". >>> >>> Given this choice, fair few people (at least 10-20% of those who voted >>> under other categories, and maybe a 100% of those who abstained) would >>> choose "don't care" or "irrelevant". >>> >>> Just my 2c. >>> >>> -C >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: >>> >>>> Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >>>> [image: Tyler Durden's picture] >>>> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 >>>> >>>> >>>> In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of >>>> the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, >>>> a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National >>>> Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions >>>> of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate >>>> terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation >>>> intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry >>>> Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The >>>> sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which >>>> is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully >>>> deserve. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> More from Pew: >>>> >>>> The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The >>>> Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no >>>> indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of >>>> phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about >>>> the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting >>>> personal privacy.* >>>> >>>> It just gets better: >>>> >>>> >>>> *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to >>>> investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal >>>> privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to >>>> intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate >>>> possible terrorist threats.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post >>>> survey in January >>>> 2006. >>>> Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: >>>> 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate >>>> terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of >>>> Republicans and 59% of independents. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more >>>> important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young >>>> people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while >>>> 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal >>>> privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >>>> >>>> The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the >>>> NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall >>>> public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it >>>> is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track >>>> telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate >>>> terrorism.”* >>>> >>>> In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush >>>> administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the >>>> NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by >>>> secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some >>>> people in the United States and other countries, without first getting >>>> court approval to do so.” >>>> >>>> Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" >>>> pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. >>>> And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >>>> >>>> Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two >>>> operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is >>>> acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records >>>> of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully >>>> 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate >>>> suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails >>>> without court approval. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% >>>> to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said >>>> it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of >>>> suspected terrorists.* >>>> >>>> Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a >>>> stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >>>> >>>> Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey >>>> totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four >>>> follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned >>>> with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the >>>> victor of Dancing with the Stars. >>>> >>>> *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news >>>> about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is >>>> a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they >>>> are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following >>>> not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online >>>> activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very >>>> closely, 33% not closely at all. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and >>>> Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the >>>> government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of >>>> Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest >>>> is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting >>>> email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and >>>> Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of >>>> Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are >>>> following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. >>>> Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be >>>> unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% >>>> among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports >>>> about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those >>>> who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, >>>> compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >>>> >>>> Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >>>> >>>> >>>> As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your >>>> life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if >>>> the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its >>>> rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >>>> Average: >>>> 4.52 >>>> Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Simon Ontoyin >> Director, Exigency Ghana Limited >> Email: exigencygh at gmail.com >> Tel: >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 11 12:14:24 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:14:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that this threda is about developing a statement. Parminder wrote: > (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) Now online in an etherpad at: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 12:17:04 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:17:04 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: What's more important is the sample size and the margin of error. On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Nnenna wrote: > > If such a study was conducted in China with 5000 respondents... > > > > What will your conclusion be? > > > > If it was conducted by a well known and well respected firm, probably > something like "that's interesting". > > Think it really depends on the source. > > Adam > > > > > > Just asking > > > > N > > > > > > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Suresh > > Ramasubramanian > > Cc: Simon Ontoyin ; Riaz K Tayob > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:37 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied > Upon, > > Pew Study Finds > > > > +2 > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian < > suresh at hserus.net> > > wrote: > > > > Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and > the > > questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to > eliminate > > interviewer bias, among other things > > > > --srs (iPad) > > > > On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > > > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob > wrote: > > > > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > > > > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a > > substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security > > Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of > > Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism." > > Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, > > investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: > > you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly > and > > thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get > > precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > <6-10-13-1.png> > > More from Pew: > > > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington > > Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that > last > > week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and > > internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff > > between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. > > > > It just gets better: > > > > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal > > government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that > intrudes > > on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government > > not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to > > investigate possible terrorist threats. > > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey > > in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan > > differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important > for > > the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of > > personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important > while > > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on > personal > > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the > NSA > > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > > public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is > > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > > terrorism.” > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court > > approval to do so.” > > > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable > > for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of > millions > > of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of > > Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected > > terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court > > approval. > > > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > > > Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. > > In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was > > unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected > > terrorists. > > > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey > > totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with > > who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor > > of Dancing with the Stars. > > > > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the > > government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they > are > > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following > not > > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. > > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story > very > > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in > interest > > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats > > and Democratic-leaners. > > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who > > say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared > > with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life > > to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the > > slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > > Average: > > 4.52 > > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Simon Ontoyin > > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > > Tel: > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > > 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: > > 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: > > 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: > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 12:18:18 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:18:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <91970F33-F830-4A97-A060-BE5F84BFE54C@hserus.net> <1370965826.42668.YahooMailNeo@web120105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: You're killing me. see my response to Adam On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Nnenna wrote: > If such a study was conducted in China with 5000 respondents... > > What will your conclusion be? > > Just asking > > N > > > > > Nnenna Nwakanma | Founder and CEO, NNENNA.ORG | Consultants > Information | Communications | Technology and Events | for Development > Cote d'Ivoire (+225)| Tel: 225 27144 | Fax 224 26471 |Mob. 07416820 > Ghana: +233 249561345| Nigeria: +234 8101887065| http://www.nnenna.org > nnenna at nnenna.org| @nnenna | Skype - nnenna75 | nnennaorg.blogspot.com > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chaitanya Dhareshwar > *To:* "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; > Suresh Ramasubramanian > *Cc:* Simon Ontoyin ; Riaz K Tayob < > riaz.tayob at gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:37 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied > Upon, Pew Study Finds > > +2 > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 8:59 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: > > Sample size doesn't quite matter as much as the method of sampling, and > the questions asked in the survey, which must be carefully designed to > eliminate interviewer bias, among other things > > --srs (iPad) > > On 11-Jun-2013, at 20:52, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, > a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National > Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions > of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation > intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry > Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep > have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why > they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > <6-10-13-1.png> > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The > Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no > indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of > phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about > the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting > personal privacy.* > > It just gets better: > > <6-10-13-3.png> > *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to > investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal > privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to > intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate > possible terrorist threats.* > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. > Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: > 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate > terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of > Republicans and 59% of independents. > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.”* > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records > of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully > 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate > suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails > without court approval. > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it > was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected terrorists.* > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey > totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, > compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: > 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: > 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 > > -- Simon Ontoyin Director, Exigency Ghana Limited Email: exigencygh at gmail.com Tel: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 11 12:28:46 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:28:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <51B7248A.6020707@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130611182846.379fea26@quill.bollow.ch> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that this thread is about developing a statement. McTim wrote: > So let's call out all gov'ts who are spying on us. +1 I'm very much in favor of (at least trying to, as best as we can) even-handedly criticizing all governments who that are acting truly outrageously in this. The US government seems to be doing it on a totally unprecedented and global scale - it is certainly justified to mention that aspect specially and in particular detail. But there are quite a few governments who are at least trying to do the essentially the same thing to their (domestic) critics, which isn't any better. Violating the human right to communications privacy is a human rights violation no matter where it happens and no matter whose communications privacy is violated. Greetings, Norbert P.S. Again, the Etherpad is at http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Jun 11 12:52:37 2013 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1370969557.9416.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Here is the thing. Over all there is a confusion on which aspects of "security" and surveillance for the "common over all good" is actually necessary and or effective. Secondly, are we sure that people are fully aware of the extent of the invasion into their privacy and what this means. I think not ! Over all I would say the people are not happy about the extent of invasion into privacy. Over all, within the last few years we have seen in the US a gradual apathy to and also some fear to speaking out as indignant citizens. Perhaps the apathy extends participation in surveys such as this one . Hence we see the numbers that we see. The numbers are, nonetheless, quite disturbing! Equally disturbing is the specter of  travelers quietly subjecting themselves to the " body scans at airports" I often wonder what would happen if even 20% opted for the pat down !! My literal 2 cents worth. Shaila   The journey begins sooner than you anticipate ! ..................... the renaissance of composure ! ________________________________ From: Chaitanya Dhareshwar To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Riaz K Tayob Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:09 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds While there are discrete "yes", "no" and "dont know" options, we're likely to see a lot more support for a "don't care" option. Fair few people don't honestly care what goes on in the government. Also in the "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable", the choice of "Irrelevant" would garner a lot of attention. IMHO a lot of people just want to stay out of politics/government/conspiracy/etc - they just want to "not care" and treat it as "irrelevant".   Given this choice, fair few people (at least 10-20% of those who voted under other categories, and maybe a 100% of those who abstained) would choose "don't care" or "irrelevant".   Just my 2c.   -C On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >Durden's picture" src="http://f1605.mail.vip.bf1.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=2%5f0%5f0%5f1%5f14509579%5fAIOki2IAAAnDUbc9xwAAAD9zc5U&pid=1.4&fid=Inbox&inline=1">Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > >In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. >More from Pew: >The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. >It just gets better: >Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. >>  >>These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. >>  >>However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. >>The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.” >>In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” >Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. >Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. >>  >>  >>Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. >Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. >Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. >Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest.  Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. >>  >>Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. >>  >>Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. >>  >>Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. >Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. >As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. >Average: >4.52 >Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) >____________________________________________________________ >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:     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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-1.png Type: image/png Size: 11039 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-3.png Type: image/png Size: 13445 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-2.png Type: image/png Size: 9289 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 6-10-13-4.png Type: image/png Size: 10501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 13:31:54 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:31:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> The fundamental problem with these surveys now is that a very large and rapidly growing segment of the population are not reachable as these surveys are drawn from the numbers in telephone books. So those with mobiles (and the demographics that they represent) are very very significantly underrepresented in these samples. Various survey firms are desperately trying to figure out how to correct for that but a couple of very significant mismatches between survey results and electoral results in Canada in the last year have really thrown into question the validity of these kinds of studies. (The other issue is of course, the question that was asked... Pew tends to be quite straightforward in thieir surveys (questions) but a quick glance at this one indicated that it was a forced choice between security and privacy which, depending on other factors may not give a very useful insight into what is more generally a spectrum/series of tradeoffs between more/less security vs. more/less privacy.) M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:30 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as- acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ ABOUT THE SURVEY The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States ... etc etc Pew's considered good. Adam On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > > > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a substantial majority, or 56% of Americans, "say the National Security Agency's (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism." Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity. Sorry Edward Snowden: you just threw your life away for nothing. The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > <6-10-13-1.png> > > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week's revelations of the government's collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy. > > It just gets better: > > <6-10-13-3.png>Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January <6-10-13-2.png>2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA "has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism." > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration's surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate "people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so." > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. > > > <6-10-13-4.png> > > > Democrats now view the NSA's phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists. > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a turnkey totalitarian tyrant, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely. > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government's data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government's tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Simon Ontoyin > Director, Exigency Ghana Limited > Email: exigencygh at gmail.com > Tel: > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 11 13:38:19 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:38:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:31 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > The fundamental problem with these surveys now is that a very large and > rapidly growing segment of the population are not reachable as these surveys > are drawn from the numbers in telephone books. So those with mobiles (and > the demographics that they represent) are very very significantly > underrepresented in these samples. Sorry, I should have included a little more in the quote I sent, actually finished the sentence. The survey was on landlines and mobile. "The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (501 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 503 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 247 who had no landline telephone)." It's still at Adam > Various survey firms are desperately > trying to figure out how to correct for that but a couple of very > significant mismatches between survey results and electoral results in > Canada in the last year have really thrown into question the validity of > these kinds of studies. > > (The other issue is of course, the question that was asked... Pew tends to > be quite straightforward in thieir surveys (questions) but a quick glance at > this one indicated that it was a forced choice between security and privacy > which, depending on other factors may not give a very useful insight into > what is more generally a spectrum/series of tradeoffs between more/less > security vs. more/less privacy.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, > Pew Study Finds > > http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as- > acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ > > ABOUT THE SURVEY > The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June > 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older > living in the continental United States ... etc etc > > > Pew's considered good. > > Adam > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > >> A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >> >> SNIP -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpham26 at ucla.edu Tue Jun 11 13:40:10 2013 From: kpham26 at ucla.edu (Kim Pham) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:40:10 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Riaz, Long time list lurker. I wanted to let you onto my very strong suspicion that this article is a spoof. First reason: The author name is a famous fiction character from "Fight Club" Second reason: A google search to confirm Tyler Durden's affiliation with Pew comes up with no relevant results. "This is water." - David Foster Wallace http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Riaz K Tayob Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds [image: Tyler Durden's picture] Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. More from Pew: The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.* It just gets better: *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.* These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents. However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate terrorism.”* In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some people in the United States and other countries, without first getting court approval to do so.” Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails without court approval. *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of suspected terrorists.* Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the victor of Dancing with the Stars. *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very closely, 33% not closely at all. Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of Democrats and Democratic-leaners. Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. Average: 4.52 Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kpham26 at ucla.edu Tue Jun 11 13:43:09 2013 From: kpham26 at ucla.edu (Kim Pham) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:43:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> Message-ID: Whoops, I apologize for that. The study was indeed conducted; someone just decided to get clever with propagating it. "This is water." - David Foster Wallace http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Kim Pham wrote: > Hi Riaz, > > Long time list lurker. I wanted to let you onto my very strong suspicion > that this article is a spoof. > > First reason: The author name is a famous fiction character from "Fight > Club" > > Second reason: A google search to confirm Tyler Durden's affiliation with > Pew comes up with no relevant results. > > "This is water." - David Foster Wallace > > http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/david-foster-wallace-in-his-own-words > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Riaz K Tayob > Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:48 AM > Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, > Pew Study Finds > To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" > > > Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds > [image: Tyler Durden's picture] > Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/10/2013 17:48 -0400 > > > In what is likely the most disappointing, if not unexpected, news of the > day, we find that according to a just released Pew Research study, > a *substantial majority, or 56% of Americans*, "*say the National > Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions > of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate > terrorism*." *Only 41% object to having every phone conversation > intercepted, investigated, analyzed, and recorded for posterity*. Sorry > Edward Snowden*: you just threw your life away for nothing**. *The sheep > have been properly and thoroughly conditioned and brainwashed, which is why > they continue to get precisely the government they so rightfully deserve. > > > > > More from Pew: > > The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The > Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults,* finds no > indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of > phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about > the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting > personal privacy.* > > It just gets better: > > > *Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to > investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal > privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to > intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate > possible terrorist threats.* > > > > These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post > survey in January > 2006. > Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: > 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate > terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of > Republicans and 59% of independents. > > > > However, while six-in-ten or more in older age groups say it is more > important to investigate terrorism even if it intrudes on privacy, young > people are divided: 51% say investigating terrorism is more important while > 45% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal > privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible threats. > > The survey finds that while there are apparent differences between the NSA > surveillance programs under the Bush and Obama administrations, overall > public reactions to both incidents are similar. *Currently, 56% say it is > acceptable that the NSA “has been getting secret court orders to track > telephone calls of millions of Americans in an effort to investigate > terrorism.”* > > In January 2006, a few weeks after initial new reports of the Bush > administration’s surveillance program, 51% said it was acceptable for the > NSA to investigate “people suspected of involvement with terrorism by > secretly listening in on telephone calls and reading e-mails between some > people in the United States and other countries, without first getting > court approval to do so.” > > Perhaps least surprising is that once the most vocal objector to "Dubya" > pervasive surveillance, the Democrats, are now its most ardent defenders. > And so once again, political party line stupidity trumps common sense. > > Republicans and Democrats have had very different views of the two > operations. Today, only about half of Republicans (52%) say it is > acceptable for the NSA to obtain court orders to track phone call records > of millions of Americans to investigate terrorism. In January 2006, fully > 75% of Republicans said it was acceptable for the NSA to investigate > suspected terrorists by listing in on phone calls and reading emails > without court approval. > > > > > > > > > *Democrats now view the NSA’s phone surveillance as acceptable by 64% to > 34%. In January 2006, by a similar margin (61% to 36%), Democrats said it > was unacceptable for the NSA to scrutinize phone calls and emails of > suspected terrorists.* > > Of course, if the president was Romney, his head would already be on a > stick. Metaphorically speaking of course. > > Finally, the biggest danger to America it appears is not a *turnkey > totalitarian tyrant*, but broad apathy as it turns out only one in four > follow NSA News "very closely." The other 3 in 4 are far more concerned > with who gets to fake-wed the fake-bachelorette this season, or who is the > victor of Dancing with the Stars. > > *Roughly a quarter (27%) of Americans say they are following news about > the government collecting Verizon phone records very closely. This is a > relatively modest level of public interest. Only another 21% say they are > following this fairly closely, while about half say they are following not > too (17%) or not at all (35%) closely.* > > > > Interest in reports about the government tracking of e-mail and online > activities is almost identical: 26% say they are following this story very > closely, 33% not closely at all. > > > > Attention to these stories is higher among Republicans and > Republican-leaning independents: 32% are following reports about the > government tracking phone records very closely, compared with 24% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. The partisan gap in interest > is almost identical when it comes to reports about government collecting > email and other online information: 30% of Republicans and > Republican-leaners are following very closely compared with 20% of > Democrats and Democratic-leaners. > > > > Overall, those who disagree with the government’s data monitoring are > following the reports somewhat more closely than those who support them. > Among those who find the government’s tracking of phone records to be > unacceptable, 31% are following the story very closely, compared with 21% > among those who say it is acceptable. Similarly with respect to reports > about government monitoring of email and online activities, 28% of those > who say this should not be done are following the news very closely, > compared with 23% of those who approve of the practice. > > Those who wish to be even more depressed can read on here. > > > As for Edward Snowden, hopefully this will teach you to throw away your > life to liberate a bloated and apathetic society that couldn't care less if > the slaughter-gate was slammed shut behind it, and just wants to have its > rose-colored blinders on in perpetuity. > Average: > 4.52 > Your rating: None Average: 4.5 (25 votes) > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 13:52:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:52:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0fc201ce66cc$779fb580$66df2080$@gmail.com> Thanks for that, it looks a quite sophisticated attempt to get around the cell issue I was pointing to... I`ll be interested to see some analyses of how well this approach is able to handle it and if it introduces (and is able to control for) other related sources of potential bias (demographics, income, geography etc.). M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:38 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:31 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > The fundamental problem with these surveys now is that a very large > and rapidly growing segment of the population are not reachable as > these surveys are drawn from the numbers in telephone books. So those > with mobiles (and the demographics that they represent) are very very > significantly underrepresented in these samples. Sorry, I should have included a little more in the quote I sent, actually finished the sentence. The survey was on landlines and mobile. "The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (501 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 503 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 247 who had no landline telephone)." It's still at Adam > Various survey firms are desperately > trying to figure out how to correct for that but a couple of very > significant mismatches between survey results and electoral results in > Canada in the last year have really thrown into question the validity > of these kinds of studies. > > (The other issue is of course, the question that was asked... Pew > tends to be quite straightforward in thieir surveys (questions) but a > quick glance at this one indicated that it was a forced choice between > security and privacy which, depending on other factors may not give a > very useful insight into what is more generally a spectrum/series of > tradeoffs between more/less security vs. more/less privacy.) > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:30 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied > Upon, Pew Study Finds > > http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracki > ng-as- > acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ > > ABOUT THE SURVEY > The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted > June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of > age or older living in the continental United States ... etc etc > > > Pew's considered good. > > Adam > > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: > >> A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >> >> SNIP -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Jun 11 13:59:15 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 02:59:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: <0fc201ce66cc$779fb580$66df2080$@gmail.com> References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> <0fc201ce66cc$779fb580$66df2080$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for that, it looks a quite sophisticated attempt to get around the > cell issue I was pointing to... I`ll be interested to see some analyses of > how well this approach is able to handle it and if it introduces (and is > able to control for) other related sources of potential bias (demographics, > income, geography etc.). > I don't know. But I believe Pew has a good reputation, see Adam > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:38 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, > Pew Study Finds > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:31 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> The fundamental problem with these surveys now is that a very large >> and rapidly growing segment of the population are not reachable as >> these surveys are drawn from the numbers in telephone books. So those >> with mobiles (and the demographics that they represent) are very very >> significantly underrepresented in these samples. > > > Sorry, I should have included a little more in the quote I sent, actually > finished the sentence. The survey was on landlines and mobile. > > "The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted June > 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of age or older > living in the continental United States (501 respondents were interviewed on > a landline telephone, and 503 were interviewed on a cell phone, including > 247 who had no landline telephone)." > > It's still at > -acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/> > > Adam > > > >> Various survey firms are desperately >> trying to figure out how to correct for that but a couple of very >> significant mismatches between survey results and electoral results in >> Canada in the last year have really thrown into question the validity >> of these kinds of studies. >> >> (The other issue is of course, the question that was asked... Pew >> tends to be quite straightforward in thieir surveys (questions) but a >> quick glance at this one indicated that it was a forced choice between >> security and privacy which, depending on other factors may not give a >> very useful insight into what is more generally a spectrum/series of >> tradeoffs between more/less security vs. more/less privacy.) >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:30 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied >> Upon, Pew Study Finds >> >> http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracki >> ng-as- >> acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ >> >> ABOUT THE SURVEY >> The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted >> June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 years of >> age or older living in the continental United States ... etc etc >> >> >> Pew's considered good. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: >> >>> A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >>> >>> > > SNIP > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 13:59:32 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:59:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data Message-ID: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 14:53:40 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:53:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I think it would be far easier and probably more useful to sign on to the statement APC had read out in Geneva: Civil Society Statement read by the Association for Progressive Communications to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case. Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of several civil society organizations from around the world. We express strong concern over recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the United States of America and the fact that US authorities makes the results of that surveillance available to other governments such as the United Kingdom. Of equal concern is the indication of apparent complicity of some US-based Internet companies with global reach. These revelations suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..." But during this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue, reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression". The application of surveillance mechanisms to the heart of global digital communications drastically threatens the protection of human rights in the digital age. As Frank La Rue notes in reference to such actions: "This raises serious concern with regard to the extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign surveillance, or seek remedies." This recent case is an example of human rights violations specifically relevant to the Internet, and one foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of Expression and the Internet. We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government action by citizens. "We urge States protect those whistleblowers involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and upholding the human rights of all. We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent the creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: 1) convening a special session to examine this case 2) supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of technological advancements, and, 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: a) formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet human rights standards, and, b) examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4. 1 Statement endorsed by: Access, International Association for Progressive Communications (APC), International Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil Global Voices Advocacy, International IT for Change, India Bolo Bhi, Pakistan La Quadrature du Net, Europe, France The Internet Democracy Project, India Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan Privacy International PROTESTE - Associação de Consumidores, Brazil On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that > this threda is about developing a statement. > > Parminder wrote: > >> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) > > Now online in an etherpad at: > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 15:16:30 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 14:16:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <0eb301ce66b8$54bf93a0$fe3ebae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Bueno hasta que se hiso público lo de (FISA) que se sabía lo que hacia hace mucho tiempo por boca, mejor dicho “salió del closet” Lo que nosotros tenemos que escoger por ética, y eso lo tenemos que reclamar pero “ya”, es que sea nuestro servicio de inteligencia de nuestro respectivo país el que nos espíe y no un extranjero. Y como podemos lograr eso, fácil decirle a nuestro gobierno el cual trabaja en pared con inteligencia de la NSA, que deje de favorecer a la empresa/s de telefonía, que nos brinda la tecnología de comunicación y de Internet, el cual trabaja en secreto conjuntamente con la NSA brindándoles el acceso ha enormes cantidades de datos de todos sus usuarios Y porque sucede esto; simple, el nodo concentrador y derivador de todas sus comunicaciones se encuentra estacionado en EE.UU. Los que se encuentran en Europa, Asia, África, Latinoamérica y otros son de pantalla, sino pregúntense el porque los gobiernos de países de Europa han protestado por la vigilancia y espionaje, claro en voz baja. Y eso que no hablo de Google, Facebook, Hotmail, Yahoo y otros. ¿Pero quien es (FISA)? Es el Tribunal de la CIA de Vigilancia de Inteligencia *Extranjera, *el cual dio el visto bueno a las demás agencias de inteligencia de los EE.UU. para que a través del Proyecto Secreto de gran alcance (PRISM) se obtenga ilimitadamente; datos, se haga vigilancia cibernética, acceso al correo electrónico, registros de chat, los datos almacenados, el tráfico de voz, transferencia de archivos y los datos de redes sociales en todo el mundo. “PRISM” cuenta con programas tentáculos que se encargan de recoger datos de los cables de fibra, flujos de datos anteriores, Interceptación telefónica, vigilancia por satélite a sospechosos y países sospechosos (los que no cooperan) y tantos otros motivos de vigilancia y espionaje que crean se deba hacer y hacer Claro que esto se va a negar y muchos de nosotros y hasta gente del gobierno saldrán a desmentirlo, pero a estas alturas… ¿quien cree a quien? Y esto lo sabían todos los gobiernos y sus respectivas agencias de inteligencia y los que dicen luchar por una Internet libre. Bueno después de esto agárrense muchachos ya que voy a estar, y vamos a estar en la mira de nuestro servicio de inteligencia, el cual también es chuponeado por la CIA, NSA PRIMS y otros servicios de inteligencia. *Creo que me voy a Hong Kong...* *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/11 Bertrand de La Chapelle > Good question. The principle is very large and the wording refers to *access > and use*. One could consider that extensive surveillance of foreign > correspondence is affecting use. But it may be a stretch. > > Furthermore, it is clear that surveillance has usually been conducted > outside of the scope of traditional oversights and international > conventions, let alone mere recommendations like this one. > > That being said, the functioning of the Internet provides much more > available data hosted on major operators and the principle of non > transboundary harm should be explored as an overall approach, or at least > the notion of responsibility for transboundary impact of national actions. > > I don't know whether surveillance is intended as a topic for the fall > conference. A lot of facts regarding the current issue will have been > clarified by then. > > B. > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Bertrand, this seems to refer primarily to access issues rather than >> surveillance issues, or am I misinterpreting? And if I`m not, is it likely >> that the meeting being called for will deal with the surveillance issues >> that have recently come to the fore?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> M**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:58 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein >> *Cc:* Kerry Brown >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be >> accomplished?**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Michael raises an interesting point: the extra-territorial extension of >> US sovereignty by leveraging the presence of major platforms on US soil. >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Just as a reminder, this Recommendation of the Council of Europe in 2011stated (emphasis added): >> **** >> >> *1.1. No harm***** >> >> 1.1.1. States have the responsibility to ensure, in compliance with the >> standards recognised in international human rights law and with the >> principles of international law, that *their actions do not have an >> adverse transboundary impact on access to and use of the Internet*.**** >> >> 1.1.2. This should include, in particular, the responsibility to ensure >> that their actions within their jurisdictions do not illegitimately >> interfere with access to content outside their territorial boundaries or >> negatively impact the transboundary flow of Internet traffic.**** >> >> *1.2. Co-operation***** >> >> States should co-operate in good faith with each other and with relevant >> stakeholders at all stages of development and implementation of >> Internet-related public policies to avoid any adverse transboundary impact >> on access to and use of the Internet.**** >> >> The principle of the responsibility of States for transboundary impact of >> their national decisions is a very important one that should be >> strengthened. I understand the Council of Europe is preparing a conference >> in the fall on that topic. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Bertrand**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote:**** >> >> The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies were >> ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was (necessarily) a >> US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. **** >> >> **** >> >> The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies with >> global reach, global markets, global users and among the most active >> purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet and what your post and >> the bulk of the discussion on these matters does not address is that the >> other (non-US) users of these services have essentially no protection under >> these laws. They/we are `fair game`. **** >> >> **** >> >> In some cases/places we have some protection under our own national laws >> but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or truly effective >> influence) over the companies themselves (as has been demonstrated in >> various matters particularly in the European context and as is currently >> being articulated to her credit by our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we >> are truly naked in front of these surveillance mechanisms (and given the >> current state of the US security panic we are all under suspicion until >> proven innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating one`s >> innocence in any lasting way.**** >> >> **** >> >> M**** >> >> **** >> >> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto: >> governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Kerry Brown >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be >> accomplished?**** >> >> **** >> >> The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). It will >> never be taken seriously.**** >> >> **** >> >> There is no proof that any of the companies you mention cooperated >> willingly. I think that they all have cooperated within the boundaries of >> the law but that is opinion. I haven’t seen any proof. I think a far more >> likely scenario is that the NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly >> illegal, to collect data that probably includes data from the mentioned >> companies. That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and >> speculation we need to call out that we are doing that.**** >> >> **** >> >> Kerry Brown**** >> >> **** >> >> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling)**** >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in which the >> global population is being subject to such intrusive and intense >> surveillance by the US government in complicity with US based companies >> like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and >> Apple. Apart from being against all tenets of basic human rights, it >> exposes the hypocrisy of the claims by the US government of a special >> global legitimacy based on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of >> the Internet. We are further troubled that in US government statements on >> the PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is to say >> that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. What about the >> non US citizens? And what about the claims of the US government that they >> are responsible to the 'global Internet community', a refrain frequently >> heard from the US government in the global Internet governance space? Why >> the double talk across spaces where technical management of the Internet is >> discussed and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from >> political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get implicated? >> **** >> >> We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global companies - >> Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple >> – betrayed the trust of their global customers in cooperating with the US >> government in such mass scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to >> have refused to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been >> available to these other companies as well. The denials by some of these >> companies about allowing government deep and largely indiscriminate access >> to information on their servers seem to run contrary to most news reports, >> which have not been contradicted by US authorities on these aspects. **** >> >> We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government and these >> US based Internet companies with global operations, whereby these companies >> help further US government's political, military, etc interests worldwide >> and the US government in turn puts its political might in service of >> ensuring an unregulated global space for these Internet businesses? A good >> example of this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and >> US-EU trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, >> against considerable resistance by EU countries. **** >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights Council calls >> for a special report and a special session on this issue. It should also >> proceed to examine ways to develop globally-applicable norms and principles >> on digital privacy and basic structures of legal frameworks and due process >> that ensures people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political >> rights as well as social and economic rights. **** >> >> **** >> >> **** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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**** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle**** >> >> Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic >> Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net)**** >> >> Member, ICANN Board of Directors >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans")**** >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic Academy > (www.internetjurisdiction.net) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 15:25:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 15:25:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds In-Reply-To: References: <51B71CB1.6070704@gmail.com> <2D3CCB67-8133-42EB-8C18-2614D29F1B36@glocom.ac.jp> <0fa601ce66c9$9197d6f0$b4c784d0$@gmail.com> <0fc201ce66cc$779fb580$66df2080$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <102e01ce66d9$6ebc65a0$4c3530e0$@gmail.com> Yes, they do. (My comment was not meant to be negative towards Pew... M -----Original Message----- From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:59 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:52 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Thanks for that, it looks a quite sophisticated attempt to get around > the cell issue I was pointing to... I`ll be interested to see some > analyses of how well this approach is able to handle it and if it > introduces (and is able to control for) other related sources of > potential bias (demographics, income, geography etc.). > I don't know. But I believe Pew has a good reputation, see Adam > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: apeake at gmail.com [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Peake > Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 1:38 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being Spied > Upon, Pew Study Finds > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:31 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: >> The fundamental problem with these surveys now is that a very large >> and rapidly growing segment of the population are not reachable as >> these surveys are drawn from the numbers in telephone books. So >> those with mobiles (and the demographics that they represent) are >> very very significantly underrepresented in these samples. > > > Sorry, I should have included a little more in the quote I sent, > actually finished the sentence. The survey was on landlines and mobile. > > "The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews > conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 > years of age or older living in the continental United States (501 > respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 503 were > interviewed on a cell phone, including > 247 who had no landline telephone)." > > It's still at > ing-as > -acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/> > > Adam > > > >> Various survey firms are desperately trying to figure out how to >> correct for that but a couple of very significant mismatches between >> survey results and electoral results in Canada in the last year have >> really thrown into question the validity of these kinds of studies. >> >> (The other issue is of course, the question that was asked... Pew >> tends to be quite straightforward in thieir surveys (questions) but a >> quick glance at this one indicated that it was a forced choice >> between security and privacy which, depending on other factors may >> not give a very useful insight into what is more generally a >> spectrum/series of tradeoffs between more/less security vs. more/less >> privacy.) >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Adam >> Peake >> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:30 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Majority Of Americans Don't Mind Being >> Spied Upon, Pew Study Finds >> >> http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-track >> i >> ng-as- >> acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/2/ >> >> ABOUT THE SURVEY >> The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews >> conducted June 6-9, 2013, among a national sample of 1,004 adults 18 >> years of age or older living in the continental United States ... etc >> etc >> >> >> Pew's considered good. >> >> Adam >> >> >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:22 AM, Simon Ontoyin wrote: >> >>> A contagiously hilarious study. 100 people? >>> >>> > > SNIP > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Jun 11 15:47:36 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:47:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 16:12:52 on Tue, 11 Jun 2013, Kerry Brown writes > If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change >re the American government?s access to private data? I don't think it would change anything. ICANN is nothing to do with the access to end user data. Not even the WHOIS held by domain and IP address registries in their respective countries. (Some of which registries are in the USA, but that wouldn't change if ICANN itself moved). The main thing keeping ICANN in the USA, apart from the possibility of it being a friendly tax and employee recruitment[1] environment, is the need for them to be based in the USA in order to hold the IANA contract. [1] They are diversifying to other places, but some might not want to relocate to Instanbul amid the current unrest. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 16:06:33 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:06:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] "US surveillance: trading secrecy for public trust?" Message-ID: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22860239 US surveillance: Trading secrecy for public trust?[image: Gordon Corera]By Gordon CoreraSecurity correspondent, BBC News [image: GCHQ]The foreign secretary has insisted that GCHQ operates within a strict legal framework Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories - Q&A: Prism and privacy - Profile: Edward Snowden Squaring secrecy and accountability is not a new challenge. But the information that Edward Snowden has put into the public domain has raised serious questions about how open the state should be when it comes to surveillance. UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to respond to allegations about a secret US spy programme Prism and the idea that Britain's GCHQ had used it to evade the law. There is no doubt that GCHQ and America's National Security Agency enjoy a close, even intimate relationship. Information is shared as a matter of course in a way that does not happen between MI6 and the CIA, their counterparts in the human intelligence world. Mr Hague tried to deal head on with concerns that this relationship had been used to swerve the law, but he did so without mentioning Prism or providing any real details, other than a blanket assurance that no laws had been broken and the system of accountability and oversight was strong. In other words, the public was asked to take his answers on trust. Patriot Act The foreign secretary said GCHQ operated under a legal framework. When I asked one official to explain the legal framework they pointed me to two pieces of legislation - the Intelligence Services Act of 1994 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Continue reading the main story“Start Quote The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could be serious” But when I then started to ask how those two pieces of legislation (written in the early days of the internet age and long before Twitter and social media) applied to the different forms of modern communication, they said they could not go any further. In other words a legal framework exists, but how it is interpreted and applied by government remains secret. A similar issue exists in the US. There are sweeping powers under the Patriot Act and other pieces of legislation to gather information. But the way in which these are actually used is not public. So for instance when the government requests that telecoms company Verizon passes on huge volumes of call data on Americans, it is done through a secret order the public would not have known about without Edward Snowden's revelations. Governments and intelligence agencies say this has to be the case because too much information about what communications they are intercepting can tip off hostile actors such as terrorists who will then modify their behaviour. Some analysts already claim that is happening now. "Jihadists are now actively sharing the reporting from the Washington Post and Guardian on Prism and recommending increased security measures in their operations," according to IntelCenter, which monitors jihadist communications. "Among the recommended measures are ceasing the use of services listed in the Washington Post and Guardian reports, increased use of encryption tools and other operational security and tradecraft measures designed to significantly impede efforts by intelligence agencies to identify and monitor their activities." Outrage Against the argument that the revelations damage national security, though, is the counter-argument that the public have a right to know what is done in their name by institutions they pay for and which are supposed to be accountable to them. [image: Edward Snowden (pic: The Guardian)]Whistleblower Edward Snowden has fled to Hong Kong following his revelations Especially if those actions might involve surveillance of the domestic public itself. Members of the public do not have much idea what the state is able to do when it comes to surveillance. And the state in the past has wanted to keep it that way. But the downsides of this are now becoming more apparent. When the UK's Communications Data Bill emerged (known to critics as the "snoopers' charter"), there was outrage in some quarters at the idea that the government was seeking information about people's phone calls and emails (although not the content). What many did not realise was that the government already had this power and used it extensively (half a million requests in 2011 were made for communications data) and the new bill was simply a way of expanding it into new forms of online communication and mandating that certain types of information was kept by companies. Similarly with Prism, some people were shocked that the state might be getting information from companies like Google and Microsoft and did not realise the state could already do this using court orders and warrants. The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could be serious, particularly when faced with a partial release of certain documents by a whistleblower keen to make his point. Governments in the UK and US will now have to look at whether the potential loss in capability by talking more about the activities of the state is nonetheless necessary in order to ensure public confidence - not just in the intelligence services, but the democratic system as a whole. -- “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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 16:25:28 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:25:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Germans accuse U.S. of Stasi tactics before Obama visit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10a501ce66e1$d67c7b00$83757100$@gmail.com> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 3:40 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Germans accuse U.S. of Stasi tactics before Obama visit http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/11/cnews-us-usa-security-germany-idCA BRE95A0T820130611 Reuters June 11, 2013 Germans accuse U.S. of Stasi tactics before Obama visit By Noah Barkin BERLIN (Reuters) - German outrage over a U.S. Internet spying program has broken out ahead of a visit by Barack Obama, with ministers demanding the president provide a full explanation when he lands in Berlin next week and one official likening the tactics to those of the East German Stasi. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's spokesman has said she will raise the issue with Obama in talks next Wednesday, potentially casting a cloud over a visit that was designed to celebrate U.S.-German ties on the 50th anniversary John F. Kennedy's famous "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech. Government surveillance is an extremely sensitive topic in Germany, where memories of the dreaded Stasi secret police and its extensive network of informants are still fresh in the minds of many citizens. In a guest editorial for Spiegel Online on Tuesday, Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said reports that the United States could access and track virtually all forms of Internet communication were "deeply disconcerting" and potentially dangerous. "The more a society monitors, controls and observes its citizens, the less free it is," she said. "The suspicion of excessive surveillance of communication is so alarming that it cannot be ignored. For that reason, openness and clarification by the U.S. administration itself is paramount at this point. All facts must be put on the table." Markus Ferber, a member of Merkel's Bavarian sister party who sits in the European Parliament, went further, accusing Washington of using "American-style Stasi methods". "I thought this era had ended when the DDR fell," he said, using the German initials for the failed German Democratic Republic. Opposition parties have jumped on the issue, keen to put a dampener on the Merkel-Obama talks and prevent them from boosting the chancellor as she gears up for a September parliamentary election in which she is seeking a third term. "This looks to me like it could become one of the biggest data privacy scandals ever," Greens leader Renate Kuenast told Reuters. TEMPERED ENTHUSIASM Obama is due to land in Berlin on Tuesday night, hold talks and a news conference with Merkel on Wednesday and then give a speech in front of thousands at the Brandenburg Gate. It is his first trip to the German capital since he passed through in 2008 during his first campaign for the presidency, giving a speech at the Victory Column in the Tiergarten park that attracted 200,000 adoring fans. Five years on, Germans are still enamored of Obama: a poll last week showed 82 percent view him favorably. But his failure to close the Guantanamo Bay military prison, extensive use of drones to kill suspected al Qaeda militants and the latest revelations about the secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, have tempered enthusiasm. According to documents leaked to the Washington Post and Guardian newspapers, the program gave U.S. officials access to emails, web chats and other communications from companies like Google, Facebook, Twitter and Skype. Obama has defended it as a "modest encroachment" on privacy and reassured Americans that no one is listening to their phone calls. But U.S. law puts virtually no eavesdropping restrictions on the communications of foreigners, meaning in theory that Washington could be delving into the private Internet communications of Germans and other Europeans. Peter Schaar, the German official with responsibility for data privacy, said this was grounds for "massive concern" in Europe. "The problem is that we Europeans are not protected from what appears to be a very comprehensive surveillance program," he told the Handelsblatt newspaper. "Neither European nor German rules apply here, and American laws only protect Americans." (Additional reporting by Andreas Rinke; Editing by Mark Trevelyan) -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51b77d06201481682920394! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Tue Jun 11 17:15:32 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:15:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <7792CB49-0E16-45A5-9856-9C0518EF6840@ella.com> good idea. avri On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:53, McTim wrote: > I think it would be far easier and probably more useful to sign on to > the statement APC had read out in Geneva: > > Civil Society Statement read by the Association for Progressive > Communications to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State > Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case. > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of several civil society > organizations from around the world. We express strong concern over > recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone > communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the > United States of America and the fact that US authorities makes the > results of that surveillance available to other governments such as > the United Kingdom. Of equal concern is the indication of apparent > complicity of some US-based Internet companies with global reach. > These revelations suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human > rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International > Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 > and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..." But during > this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. > Frank La Rue, reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state > surveillance of communications with serious implications for the > exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and > expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and > non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary > and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications > and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to > freedom of opinion and expression". > > The application of surveillance mechanisms to the heart of global > digital communications drastically threatens the protection of human > rights in the digital age. As Frank La Rue notes in reference to such > actions: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." This recent case is an example of > human rights violations specifically relevant to the Internet, and one > foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of > Expression and the Internet. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. > As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers > ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government > action by citizens. "We urge States protect those whistleblowers > involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat > violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. > Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and > upholding the human rights of all. > > We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent the > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > > 1) convening a special session to examine this case > > 2) supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a > new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements, and, > > 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > a) formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on > surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet > human rights standards, and, > b) examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > 1 > > Statement endorsed by: > > Access, International > Association for Progressive Communications (APC), International > Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil > Global Voices Advocacy, International > IT for Change, India > Bolo Bhi, Pakistan > La Quadrature du Net, Europe, France > The Internet Democracy Project, India > Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan > Privacy International > PROTESTE - Associação de Consumidores, Brazil > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that >> this threda is about developing a statement. >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) >> >> Now online in an etherpad at: >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Tue Jun 11 17:18:57 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 17:18:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1DD1F5EC-E634-47B7-BFBD-772EC55A0CC3@ella.com> On 11 Jun 2013, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote: > The main thing keeping ICANN in the USA, apart from the possibility of it being a friendly tax and employee recruitment[1] environment, is the need for them to be based in the USA in order to hold the IANA contract. doesn't the contractual nature of all of their relationships sort of keep them in the US as well. If they provide a regulatory function via contract, don't they need to be were the contracts are? or at least keep part of it where the contracts are: e,g, the new GDD avri GDD - generic domains division -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 11 17:23:36 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:23:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <0cfa01ce668f$6678eac0$336ac040$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130611232336.06f3e545@quill.bollow.ch> Michael Gurstein wrote: > Unfortunately there doesn`t seem to be even the most minimal > agreement on this list concerning the nature of the public interest > with respect to the Internet and Internet Governance I agree with this assessment. > It has thus proven to be fundamentally impossible to ``do something > productive``. We need to find a way to transform the great diversity from a hindrance into a strength of the IGC. IMO the key to this is the concept of a “forum for discussion, advocacy, action” contained in the IGC mission statement. Here “forum” does not imply homogenity, but rather that the greatest possible diversity of viewpoints should be welcome, and that alliances and other forms of win-win cooperation can be established on an issue by issue basis. We will need to set up appropriate infrastructure and then develop an appropriate, productive culture of discussion and collaboration in which good use is made of that infrastructure. You may expect a posting soon with thoughts from Sala and myself in regard to more concrete ideas for this... Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Tue Jun 11 17:24:48 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:24:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? Message-ID: The law governing a contract is entirely separate from the legal jurisdiction in which the parties to it are domiciled. On 11 Jun 2013 23:19, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Well said Nick. > > Anriette > > On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there > is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to > overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it > seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. > > > > Is this really the best that this list can do? > > > > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the > like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one > another, or score points for the public interest? > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 > zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA > fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ > s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA > uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex > JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= > =dPgW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From rguerra at privaterra.org Tue Jun 11 18:03:45 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 18:03:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> Kerry, Will defer any legal opinions to lawyers on the list... That being said. On 2013-06-11, at 12:12 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more open and transparent. If you are a Canadian - then it is key that you direct your focus to institutional actors in Canada who are involved in Internet governance, privacy, etc. The Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA), Industry Canada and the Privacy commissioners (both at a national and provincial level) are institutions which you should engage. Key academic centres such as the Citizen Lab and CIPPIC are also involved in bringing a rights based approach to Canadian policy. > > Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American government’s access to private data? ICANN, if i'm not mistaken (and i'm not a lawyer) gets most of its authority from contracts it has with all the different stakeholders. One has to distinguish what ICANN does to the different contracted parties - such as the root zone operators. ICANN is , in my opinion - a coordinating organization. It is the contracted parties and key intermediaries (such as telcos) who are subject to legal lawful access requests. It is the later I believe we should focus our efforts on and not ICANN.. > Many of the services that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? > > I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. > The internationalization of ICANN has been a subject of conversation for years. Given anchor it has in the US it would be hard to have it leave the US in the short or medium term. Assuming it could leave the US, the question which jurisdiction would be better or if instead it should be given an international status much like the red cross or international olympic committee. Other jurisdictions also have their issues as well. It's frankly not that simple and will require decades for evolution to take place. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Senior Advisor, Citizen Lab and Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto Phone: +1 416-893-0377 Cell: +1 202 905 2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: robert at citizenlab.org Web: http://citizenlab.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Tue Jun 11 18:44:21 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:44:21 +0000 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> References: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> Message-ID: > > > If you are a Canadian - then it is key that you direct your focus to institutional > actors in Canada who are involved in Internet governance, privacy, etc. > > The Canadian Internet Registry Authority (CIRA), Industry Canada and the > Privacy commissioners (both at a national and provincial level) are institutions > which you should engage. Key academic centres such as the Citizen Lab and > CIPPIC are also involved in bringing a rights based approach to Canadian > policy. I'm on the CIRA board of directors. I'm also one the founding members of ISOC Canada. :) I agree that working with groups within your country is the best way to solve the privacy issue. > ICANN, if i'm not mistaken (and i'm not a lawyer) gets most of its authority > from contracts it has with all the different stakeholders. One has to > distinguish what ICANN does to the different contracted parties - such as the > root zone operators. > > ICANN is , in my opinion - a coordinating organization. It is the contracted > parties and key intermediaries (such as telcos) who are subject to legal lawful > access requests. It is the later I believe we should focus our efforts on and > not ICANN.. > I agree. My point was that some people seem to be conflating the two issues and are using the recent government spying controversy to suggest moving ICANN out of US jurisdiction is a good thing. I don't think there is any connection between the two but it seems some people on this list think there is. Kerry Brown -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 20:17:26 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 19:17:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Prism MI6 y la CIA, Message-ID: Bueno hasta que se hiso público lo de (FISA) que se sabía lo que hacia hace mucho tiempo por boca, mejor dicho “salió del closet” Lo que nosotros tenemos que escoger por ética, y eso lo tenemos que reclamar pero “ya”, es que sea nuestro servicio de inteligencia de nuestro respectivo país el que nos espíe y no un extranjero. Y como podemos lograr eso, fácil decirle a nuestro gobierno el cual trabaja en pared con inteligencia de la NSA, que deje de favorecer a la empresa/s de telefonía, que nos brinda la tecnología de comunicación y de Internet, el cual trabaja en secreto conjuntamente con la NSA brindándoles el acceso ha enormes cantidades de datos de todos sus usuarios Y porque sucede esto; simple, el nodo concentrador y derivador de todas sus comunicaciones se encuentra estacionado en EE.UU. Los que se encuentran en Europa, Asia, África, Latinoamérica y otros son de pantalla, sino pregúntense el porque los gobiernos de países de Europa han protestado por la vigilancia y espionaje, claro en voz baja. Y eso que no hablo de Google, Facebook, Hotmail, Yahoo y otros. ¿Pero quien es (FISA)? Es el Tribunal de la CIA de Vigilancia de Inteligencia*Extranjera, *el cual dio el visto bueno a las demás agencias de inteligencia de los EE.UU. para que a través del Proyecto Secreto de gran alcance (PRISM) se obtenga ilimitadamente; datos, se haga vigilancia cibernética, acceso al correo electrónico, registros de chat, los datos almacenados, el tráfico de voz, transferencia de archivos y los datos de redes sociales en todo el mundo. “PRISM” cuenta con programas tentáculos que se encargan de recoger datos de los cables de fibra, flujos de datos anteriores, Interceptación telefónica, vigilancia por satélite a sospechosos y países sospechosos (los que no cooperan) y tantos otros motivos de vigilancia y espionaje que crean se deba hacer y hacer Claro que esto se va a negar y muchos de nosotros y hasta gente del gobierno saldrán a desmentirlo, pero a estas alturas… ¿quien cree a quien? Y esto lo sabían todos los gobiernos y sus respectivas agencias de inteligencia y los que dicen luchar por una Internet libre. Bueno después de esto agárrense muchachos ya que voy a estar, y vamos a estar en la mira de nuestro servicio de inteligencia, el cual también es chuponeado por la CIA, NSA PRIMS y otros servicios de inteligencia. *Creo que me voy a Hong Kong...* *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/11 Deirdre Williams > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22860239 > > US surveillance: Trading secrecy for public trust?[image: Gordon Corera]By > Gordon CoreraSecurity correspondent, BBC News > [image: GCHQ]The foreign secretary has insisted that GCHQ operates within > a strict legal framework > Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories > > - Q&A: Prism and privacy > - Profile: Edward Snowden > > Squaring secrecy and accountability is not a new challenge. But the > information that Edward Snowden has put into the public domain has raised > serious questions about how open the state should be when it comes to > surveillance. > > UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to respond to allegations > about a secret US spy programme Prism and the idea that Britain's GCHQ had > used it to evade the law. > > There is no doubt that GCHQ and America's National Security Agency enjoy a > close, even intimate relationship. > > Information is shared as a matter of course in a way that does not happen > between MI6 and the CIA, their counterparts in the human intelligence world. > > Mr Hague tried to deal head on with concerns that this relationship had > been used to swerve the law, but he did so without mentioning Prism or > providing any real details, other than a blanket assurance that no laws had > been broken and the system of accountability and oversight was strong. > > In other words, the public was asked to take his answers on trust. > Patriot Act > > The foreign secretary said GCHQ operated under a legal framework. > > When I asked one official to explain the legal framework they pointed me > to two pieces of legislation - the Intelligence Services Act of 1994 and > the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. > Continue reading the main story“Start > Quote > > The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the > state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could > be serious” > > But when I then started to ask how those two pieces of legislation > (written in the early days of the internet age and long before Twitter and > social media) applied to the different forms of modern communication, they > said they could not go any further. > > In other words a legal framework exists, but how it is interpreted and > applied by government remains secret. > > A similar issue exists in the US. There are sweeping powers under the > Patriot Act and other pieces of legislation to gather information. But the > way in which these are actually used is not public. > > So for instance when the government requests that telecoms company Verizon > passes on huge volumes of call data on Americans, it is done through a > secret order the public would not have known about without Edward Snowden's > revelations. > > Governments and intelligence agencies say this has to be the case because > too much information about what communications they are intercepting can > tip off hostile actors such as terrorists who will then modify their > behaviour. > > Some analysts already claim that is happening now. > > "Jihadists are now actively sharing the reporting from the Washington Post > and Guardian on Prism and recommending increased security measures in their > operations," according to IntelCenter, which monitors jihadist > communications. > > "Among the recommended measures are ceasing the use of services listed in > the Washington Post and Guardian reports, increased use of encryption tools > and other operational security and tradecraft measures designed to > significantly impede efforts by intelligence agencies to identify and > monitor their activities." > Outrage > > Against the argument that the revelations damage national security, > though, is the counter-argument that the public have a right to know what > is done in their name by institutions they pay for and which are supposed > to be accountable to them. > [image: Edward Snowden (pic: The Guardian)]Whistleblower Edward Snowden > has fled to Hong Kong following his revelations > > Especially if those actions might involve surveillance of the domestic > public itself. > > Members of the public do not have much idea what the state is able to do > when it comes to surveillance. And the state in the past has wanted to keep > it that way. > > But the downsides of this are now becoming more apparent. > > When the UK's Communications Data Bill emerged (known to critics as the > "snoopers' charter"), there was outrage in some quarters at the idea that > the government was seeking information about people's phone calls and > emails (although not the content). > > What many did not realise was that the government already had this power > and used it extensively (half a million requests in 2011 were made for > communications data) and the new bill was simply a way of expanding it into > new forms of online communication and mandating that certain types of > information was kept by companies. > > Similarly with Prism, some people were shocked that the state might be > getting information from companies like Google and Microsoft and did not > realise the state could already do this using court orders and warrants. > > The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the > state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could > be serious, particularly when faced with a partial release of certain > documents by a whistleblower keen to make his point. > > Governments in the UK and US will now have to look at whether the > potential loss in capability by talking more about the activities of the > state is nonetheless necessary in order to ensure public confidence - not > just in the intelligence services, but the democratic system as a whole. > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 20:20:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:20:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> References: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi Robert, On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Kerry, > > ICANN, if i'm not mistaken (and i'm not a lawyer) gets most of its authority > from contracts it has with all the different stakeholders. One has to > distinguish what ICANN does to the different contracted parties - such as > the root zone operators. just as a point of information, to my knowledge, only one of the 12 ("F" IIRC) has signed an MoU with ICANN (as a root-op). -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From drc at virtualized.org Tue Jun 11 20:58:35 2013 From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:58:35 +1000 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: <6C8CB568-1925-4BBE-A88A-F04B886FBD02@privaterra.org> Message-ID: On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:20 AM, McTim wrote: >> ICANN, if i'm not mistaken (and i'm not a lawyer) gets most of its authority >> from contracts it has with all the different stakeholders. With the added twist that the contracted parties have a say in what's in the contracts through bottom-up consensus negotiations. >> One has to >> distinguish what ICANN does to the different contracted parties - such as >> the root zone operators. > > just as a point of information, to my knowledge, only one of the 12 ("F" IIRC) > has signed an MoU with ICANN (as a root-op). The agreement with F (and I believe a couple of other root server operators) is more of a mutual recognition thing, not anything like a contract and there are definitely no contractual obligations with penalties. Regards, -drc -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 21:00:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:30:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: <7792CB49-0E16-45A5-9856-9C0518EF6840@ella.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> <7792CB49-0E16-45A5-9856-9C0518EF6840@ella.com> Message-ID: <3A8F8E9B-AED0-4338-AB7E-2B8CF85A9DA4@hserus.net> +1 --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 2:45, Avri Doria wrote: > good idea. > > avri > > On 11 Jun 2013, at 14:53, McTim wrote: > >> I think it would be far easier and probably more useful to sign on to >> the statement APC had read out in Geneva: >> >> Civil Society Statement read by the Association for Progressive >> Communications to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State >> Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case. >> >> Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of several civil society >> organizations from around the world. We express strong concern over >> recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone >> communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the >> United States of America and the fact that US authorities makes the >> results of that surveillance available to other governments such as >> the United Kingdom. Of equal concern is the indication of apparent >> complicity of some US-based Internet companies with global reach. >> These revelations suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human >> rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International >> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 >> and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which >> "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be >> protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..." But during >> this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. >> Frank La Rue, reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state >> surveillance of communications with serious implications for the >> exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and >> expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and >> non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary >> and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications >> and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to >> freedom of opinion and expression". >> >> The application of surveillance mechanisms to the heart of global >> digital communications drastically threatens the protection of human >> rights in the digital age. As Frank La Rue notes in reference to such >> actions: "This raises serious concern with regard to the >> extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the >> inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign >> surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign >> surveillance, or seek remedies." This recent case is an example of >> human rights violations specifically relevant to the Internet, and one >> foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of >> Expression and the Internet. >> >> We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. >> As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers >> ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government >> action by citizens. "We urge States protect those whistleblowers >> involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat >> violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. >> Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and >> upholding the human rights of all. >> >> We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent the >> creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: >> >> 1) convening a special session to examine this case >> >> 2) supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the >> recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a >> new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of >> technological advancements, and, >> >> 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: >> a) formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on >> surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet >> human rights standards, and, >> b) examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human >> Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business >> and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of >> A/HRC/RES/17/4. >> 1 >> >> Statement endorsed by: >> >> Access, International >> Association for Progressive Communications (APC), International >> Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil >> Global Voices Advocacy, International >> IT for Change, India >> Bolo Bhi, Pakistan >> La Quadrature du Net, Europe, France >> The Internet Democracy Project, India >> Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan >> Privacy International >> PROTESTE - Associação de Consumidores, Brazil >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that >>> this threda is about developing a statement. >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) >>> >>> Now online in an etherpad at: >>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> -- >>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dave at difference.com.au Tue Jun 11 21:42:43 2013 From: dave at difference.com.au (David Cake) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:42:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E597E4-54B0-41D9-BCE8-130D48CE3392@difference.com.au> While there are reasons why ICANN being subject to California law isn't the ideal, I agree it doesn't have that much to do with the surveillance issue. It is more of a problem for surveillance and free expression purposes that Verisign (and other large registries, such as PIR) are located in the USA. Regards David On 12/06/2013, at 12:12 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more open and transparent. > > Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American government’s access to private data? Many of the services that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? > > I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. > > Kerry Brown > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 11 21:59:17 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:29:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <46E597E4-54B0-41D9-BCE8-130D48CE3392@difference.com.au> References: <46E597E4-54B0-41D9-BCE8-130D48CE3392@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <084582F4-C31E-40A3-9E69-0CF1AE92B64D@hserus.net> It is not as much of a problem for surveillance as for actual takedowns that VRSN etc being subject to US law is an issue. So far, that seems to be extensively applied to malware domains .. most noticeably by microsoft using statutes of the lanham act to move for takedown of domains owned by virus writers, that are in .com, never mind that the actual guy is in the ukraine or morocco or wherever. --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 7:12, David Cake wrote: > While there are reasons why ICANN being subject to California law isn't the ideal, I agree it doesn't have that much to do with the surveillance issue. > It is more of a problem for surveillance and free expression purposes that Verisign (and other large registries, such as PIR) are located in the USA. > > Regards > David > > On 12/06/2013, at 12:12 AM, Kerry Brown wrote: > >> The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more open and transparent. >> >> Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American government’s access to private data? Many of the services that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? >> >> I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 22:54:32 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:54:32 +1200 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <09A2178C-C7F9-457E-A8C3-6FE072C4A3ED@gmail.com> Whilst it may be easier to sign, there are few considerations missing from the statement. It would also be good to have an IGC statement on the issue as well. My thoughts are: Whilst national security is an exception to Article 19 of the ICCPR, and where there is well established jurisprudence that on certain occasions and under certain circumstances human rights may be suspended. With matters of national security and threats to public safety, there is emerging (reality is that it has been around since Nixon and the wiretapping saga but only in recent times gained exposure due to multiple factors) jurisprudence amongst states and law enforcement that states need to know "everything". Countries that are traditionally known for preserving tenets of fundamental rights and freedoms are clearly evolving: *France *US *UK Any member country of the Interpol, Europol have state authorized mechanisms for surveillance, most are founded on handshakes. On the other hand states that are often labelled as "communistic" for diverse reasons such as: *China *Syria *Iran What we are seeing is states (all shapes and sizes) seem to be moving to greater state sponsored surveillance. Whilst the manifestation is the violation of privacy, what we should be addressing is the tectonic shifts that are causing them. As stakeholders within a global community, we cannot address and confront states without other stakeholders aside from states who carry out these actions whilst condoning the same action from other stakeholders in the global community. There has to be a sense of being non-partisan in the objectivity within which we raise our concerns. States have reasons (national security, threats of terrorism), the private sector has reasons (knowing market needs, behaviour, patterns), criminals have their reasons (exploitation for gain, desire to cause harm) etc. We as civil society must speak and address these issues in a manner that is balanced, sustainable where we point to a standard where the world needs to be accountable. I would also suggest that in the IGC statement, that we can call on civil society around the world, states and private sector to act responsibly. We can also call on Parliaments around the world and communities to think deeply about these issues and craft balanced laws and policies. Additional Comments I am sharing this as I know that in much of the world, countries are moving to address the important balance between national security and rights of individuals which is where I feel the real advocacy should happen. (Recently, in my own country, I was retained through a regional university to lead the national consultations for Cyber security at the request of my Government through the Ministry of Defence with the view of drafting the strategy, policy etc with our cyber security working group. I deliberately wove issues of privacy in the discussions and was surprised that there was overwhelming comments for support for privacy from the private sector, public sector and civil society.) Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 12, 2013, at 6:53 AM, McTim wrote: > I think it would be far easier and probably more useful to sign on to > the statement APC had read out in Geneva: > > Civil Society Statement read by the Association for Progressive > Communications to the Human Rights Council on the impact of State > Surveillance on Human Rights addressing the PRISM/NSA case. > > Thank you Mr. President. I speak on behalf of several civil society > organizations from around the world. We express strong concern over > recent revelations of surveillance of internet and telephone > communications of US and non-US nationals by the government of the > United States of America and the fact that US authorities makes the > results of that surveillance available to other governments such as > the United Kingdom. Of equal concern is the indication of apparent > complicity of some US-based Internet companies with global reach. > These revelations suggest a blatant and systematic disregard for human > rights as articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International > Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as Articles 12 > and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > Just last year the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 20/8, which > "Affirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be > protected online, in particular freedom of expression ..." But during > this session the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Mr. > Frank La Rue, reported (A/HRC/23/40) worrying new trends in state > surveillance of communications with serious implications for the > exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and > expression. The Special Rapporteur notes that inadequate and > non-existent legal frameworks "create a fertile ground for arbitrary > and unlawful infringements of the right to privacy in communications > and, consequently, also threaten the protection of the right to > freedom of opinion and expression". > > The application of surveillance mechanisms to the heart of global > digital communications drastically threatens the protection of human > rights in the digital age. As Frank La Rue notes in reference to such > actions: "This raises serious concern with regard to the > extra-territorial commission of human rights violations and the > inability of individuals to know that they might be subject to foreign > surveillance, challenge decisions with respect to foreign > surveillance, or seek remedies." This recent case is an example of > human rights violations specifically relevant to the Internet, and one > foreshadowed in the Council's 2012 Expert Panel on Freedom of > Expression and the Internet. > > We call for protection of those who have made these violations public. > As Mr La Rue notes, laws "must not be used to target whistleblowers > ... nor should they hamper the legitimate oversight of government > action by citizens. "We urge States protect those whistleblowers > involved in this case and to support their efforts to combat > violations of the fundamental human rights of all global citizens. > Whistleblowers play a critical role in promoting transparency and > upholding the human rights of all. > > We call on the Human Rights Council to act swiftly to prevent the > creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by: > > 1) convening a special session to examine this case > > 2) supporting a multistakeholder process to implement the > recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee develop a > new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of > technological advancements, and, > > 3) requesting the High Commissioner to prepare a report that: > a) formally asks states to report on practices and laws in place on > surveillance and what corrective steps will they will take to meet > human rights standards, and, > b) examines the implications of this case in in the light of the Human > Rights Council endorsed United Nations Guiding Principles on Business > and Human Rights, the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework of > A/HRC/RES/17/4. > 1 > > Statement endorsed by: > > Access, International > Association for Progressive Communications (APC), International > Center for Technology and Society (CTS/FGV), Brazil > Global Voices Advocacy, International > IT for Change, India > Bolo Bhi, Pakistan > La Quadrature du Net, Europe, France > The Internet Democracy Project, India > Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan > Privacy International > PROTESTE - Associação de Consumidores, Brazil > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Note: The "{S}" in the Subject: line is intent as an indication that >> this threda is about developing a statement. >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) >> >> Now online in an etherpad at: >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/internet-surveillance >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 23:40:05 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:10:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: That would be my understanding as well Nick. However in ICANN's case I understand there are clauses that prevent them shifting HQ to another jurisdiction/country. -C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > The law governing a contract is entirely separate from the legal > jurisdiction in which the parties to it are domiciled. > On 11 Jun 2013 23:19, "Avri Doria" wrote: > >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Well said Nick. >> >> Anriette >> >> On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there >> is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to >> overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it >> seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. >> > >> > Is this really the best that this list can do? >> > >> > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the >> like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one >> another, or score points for the public interest? >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 >> zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA >> fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ >> s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA >> uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex >> JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= >> =dPgW >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Tue Jun 11 23:44:31 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:14:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Prism MI6 y la CIA, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Translation from translate.google.com *Well until about public hiso (FISA) that knew what he was doing long ago by the mouth, or rather "out of the closet"* * * *What we have to choose for ethics, and that we have to claim but "and" is that our intelligence is our own country that we spy and not a foreigner.* * * *And as we do that, our government easy to tell which wall works NSA intelligence, to stop favoring the company / s telephony, which gives us communication technology and Internet, which works in secret conjunction with providing NSA has access huge amounts of data of all its users* * * *And why this happens; simple hub node and all communications wrapper is stationed in the U.S.* *Those found in Europe, Asia, Africa, Latin America and others are screen, but ask yourself why the governments of European countries have protested the surveillance and spying, clear quietly.* *And that I do not speak for Google, Facebook, Hotmail, Yahoo and others.* * * *But who is (FISA)? It is the Court InteligenciaExtranjera Surveillance CIA, which gave the nod to the other agencies of the U.S. intelligence so that through the powerful Secret Project (PRISM) to obtain unlimited, data becomes cyber surveillance, access email, chat records, stored data, voice traffic, file transfer and network data worldwide social.* *"PRISM" has tentacles programs that are responsible for collecting data fiber cables, previous data streams, telephone interception, satellite surveillance and countries suspected suspects (those who do not cooperate) and so many other reasons for monitoring and espionage create is to be made and make* *Of course this will be denied and many of us and even government people will deny it, but at this point ... who believes whom?* * * *And this I knew all governments and their intelligence agencies and those who claim to fight for a free Internet.* * * *Well after this boys hang on and I'll be, and we'll be in the sights of our intelligence, which is also chuponeado by the CIA, NSA PRIMS and other intelligence services.* * * *I think I'm going to Hong Kong ...* ** ** ** *Sincerely: José Félix Arias Ynche Social Research for Development* On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:47 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > Bueno hasta que se hiso público lo de (FISA) que se sabía lo que hacia > hace mucho tiempo por boca, mejor dicho “salió del closet” > > > > Lo que nosotros tenemos que escoger por ética, y eso lo tenemos que > reclamar pero “ya”, es que sea nuestro servicio de inteligencia de nuestro > respectivo país el que nos espíe y no un extranjero. > > > > Y como podemos lograr eso, fácil decirle a nuestro gobierno el cual > trabaja en pared con inteligencia de la NSA, que deje de favorecer a la > empresa/s de telefonía, que nos brinda la tecnología de comunicación y de > Internet, el cual trabaja en secreto conjuntamente con la NSA brindándoles > el acceso ha enormes cantidades de datos de todos sus usuarios > > > > Y porque sucede esto; simple, el nodo concentrador y derivador de todas > sus comunicaciones se encuentra estacionado en EE.UU. > > Los que se encuentran en Europa, Asia, África, Latinoamérica y otros son > de pantalla, sino pregúntense el porque los gobiernos de países de Europa > han protestado por la vigilancia y espionaje, claro en voz baja. > > Y eso que no hablo de Google, Facebook, Hotmail, Yahoo y otros. > > > > ¿Pero quien es (FISA)? Es el Tribunal de la CIA de Vigilancia de > Inteligencia*Extranjera, *el cual dio el visto bueno a las demás agencias > de inteligencia de los EE.UU. para que a través del Proyecto Secreto de > gran alcance (PRISM) se obtenga ilimitadamente; datos, se haga vigilancia > cibernética, acceso al correo electrónico, registros de chat, los datos > almacenados, el tráfico de voz, transferencia de archivos y los datos de > redes sociales en todo el mundo. > > “PRISM” cuenta con programas tentáculos que se encargan de recoger datos > de los cables de fibra, flujos de datos anteriores, Interceptación > telefónica, vigilancia por satélite a sospechosos y países sospechosos (los > que no cooperan) y tantos otros motivos de vigilancia y espionaje que crean > se deba hacer y hacer > > Claro que esto se va a negar y muchos de nosotros y hasta gente del > gobierno saldrán a desmentirlo, pero a estas alturas… ¿quien cree a quien? > > > > > Y esto lo sabían todos los gobiernos y sus respectivas agencias de > inteligencia y los que dicen luchar por una Internet libre. > > > > Bueno después de esto agárrense muchachos ya que voy a estar, y vamos a > estar en la mira de nuestro servicio de inteligencia, el cual también es > chuponeado por la CIA, NSA PRIMS y otros servicios de inteligencia. > > > > *Creo que me voy a Hong Kong...* > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/6/11 Deirdre Williams > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22860239 >> >> US surveillance: Trading secrecy for public trust?[image: Gordon Corera]By >> Gordon CoreraSecurity correspondent, BBC News >> [image: GCHQ]The foreign secretary has insisted that GCHQ operates >> within a strict legal framework >> Continue reading the main storyRelated Stories >> >> - Q&A: Prism and privacy >> - Profile: Edward Snowden >> >> Squaring secrecy and accountability is not a new challenge. But the >> information that Edward Snowden has put into the public domain has raised >> serious questions about how open the state should be when it comes to >> surveillance. >> >> UK Foreign Secretary William Hague was forced to respond to allegations >> about a secret US spy programme Prism and the idea that Britain's GCHQ had >> used it to evade the law. >> >> There is no doubt that GCHQ and America's National Security Agency enjoy >> a close, even intimate relationship. >> >> Information is shared as a matter of course in a way that does not happen >> between MI6 and the CIA, their counterparts in the human intelligence world. >> >> Mr Hague tried to deal head on with concerns that this relationship had >> been used to swerve the law, but he did so without mentioning Prism or >> providing any real details, other than a blanket assurance that no laws had >> been broken and the system of accountability and oversight was strong. >> >> In other words, the public was asked to take his answers on trust. >> Patriot Act >> >> The foreign secretary said GCHQ operated under a legal framework. >> >> When I asked one official to explain the legal framework they pointed me >> to two pieces of legislation - the Intelligence Services Act of 1994 and >> the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. >> Continue reading the main story“Start >> Quote >> >> The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the >> state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could >> be serious” >> >> But when I then started to ask how those two pieces of legislation >> (written in the early days of the internet age and long before Twitter and >> social media) applied to the different forms of modern communication, they >> said they could not go any further. >> >> In other words a legal framework exists, but how it is interpreted and >> applied by government remains secret. >> >> A similar issue exists in the US. There are sweeping powers under the >> Patriot Act and other pieces of legislation to gather information. But the >> way in which these are actually used is not public. >> >> So for instance when the government requests that telecoms company >> Verizon passes on huge volumes of call data on Americans, it is done >> through a secret order the public would not have known about without Edward >> Snowden's revelations. >> >> Governments and intelligence agencies say this has to be the case because >> too much information about what communications they are intercepting can >> tip off hostile actors such as terrorists who will then modify their >> behaviour. >> >> Some analysts already claim that is happening now. >> >> "Jihadists are now actively sharing the reporting from the Washington >> Post and Guardian on Prism and recommending increased security measures in >> their operations," according to IntelCenter, which monitors jihadist >> communications. >> >> "Among the recommended measures are ceasing the use of services listed in >> the Washington Post and Guardian reports, increased use of encryption tools >> and other operational security and tradecraft measures designed to >> significantly impede efforts by intelligence agencies to identify and >> monitor their activities." >> Outrage >> >> Against the argument that the revelations damage national security, >> though, is the counter-argument that the public have a right to know what >> is done in their name by institutions they pay for and which are supposed >> to be accountable to them. >> [image: Edward Snowden (pic: The Guardian)]Whistleblower Edward Snowden >> has fled to Hong Kong following his revelations >> >> Especially if those actions might involve surveillance of the domestic >> public itself. >> >> Members of the public do not have much idea what the state is able to do >> when it comes to surveillance. And the state in the past has wanted to keep >> it that way. >> >> But the downsides of this are now becoming more apparent. >> >> When the UK's Communications Data Bill emerged (known to critics as the >> "snoopers' charter"), there was outrage in some quarters at the idea that >> the government was seeking information about people's phone calls and >> emails (although not the content). >> >> What many did not realise was that the government already had this power >> and used it extensively (half a million requests in 2011 were made for >> communications data) and the new bill was simply a way of expanding it into >> new forms of online communication and mandating that certain types of >> information was kept by companies. >> >> Similarly with Prism, some people were shocked that the state might be >> getting information from companies like Google and Microsoft and did not >> realise the state could already do this using court orders and warrants. >> >> The lack of information in the public domain may well have suited the >> state in the past, but the consequences now in terms of public trust could >> be serious, particularly when faced with a partial release of certain >> documents by a whistleblower keen to make his point. >> >> Governments in the UK and US will now have to look at whether the >> potential loss in capability by talking more about the activities of the >> state is nonetheless necessary in order to ensure public confidence - not >> just in the intelligence services, but the democratic system as a whole. >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Jun 12 02:12:34 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:12:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings References: Message-ID: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> Dear subscribers, As you know, I'm Geneva Representative of CCIA in my day job - this press release from us would, I thought, be of interest to many of you. > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > > June 11, 2013 > > > > CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings > > Washington – Recent reports regarding NSA access to phone call metadata and online communications and data have highlighted the continued importance of government transparency. The Computer & Communications Industry Association commends the specific requests of both senators and companies today that would help. > CCIA shares the grave concerns expressed about the allegations in these disclosures. The Association supports recently proposed legislation to declassify the legal decisions providing the basis for government surveillance, and joins industry in calling for transparency in the frequency which the government seeks data from U.S. business. > > Without knowledge about how the law is being interpreted and used, proper debate about practices is impossible. A group of Senators have realized this fact, and introduced a bill today that would require the Department of Justice to declassify a large number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions. CCIA supports this effort, led by Senators Merkley and Lee and joined by 6 other Senators. > > CCIA has advocated against these sections of FISA for years and testified before the Senate in 2007 that we had concerns about accountability and transparency. > > The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black: > > “To make appropriate decisions about security in a free society, the public should be informed about the legal principles governing surveillance in America. Transparency is essential; secret law is antithetical to democracy.” > > “A top concern to consider is whether a secret executive branch program using secret courts with oversight by lawmakers briefed secretly can provide the adequate checks and balances intended by our founders. What is missing is accountability and public scrutiny as part of the checks and balances. That can only come with more transparency about what our nation is doing so we can discuss as a nation whether it’s worth it. > > “We join industry in calling on the US government to enable companies to report aggregate national security data requests it receives from the government. Google issued such a request today in a letter to the attorney general and FBI director and Facebook issued a similar request. In addition to important transparency goals, there are serious First Amendment issues with such gag orders. > > “As the industry that provides Internet services and communications tools, we disagree with the notion that the scope of government surveillance or how frequently these tools are used should be classified. > > “In this effort to gather security data, the broader picture of the damage to the Internet was lost. Somehow the Internet as a global tool, a trade tool and a trusted communication tool for people around the world was not adequately weighed into the cost benefit analysis. > > “There are broad costs to our nation’s diplomatic, economic and trade goals if the millions of people around the world using Internet services to communicate are worried about how their information and data is being used by the US government.” > > About CCIA: > > CCIA is a 40 year-old international, nonprofit association of computer and communications and Internet industry firms, representing a broad cross section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, fair and open competition throughout our industry. Our members employ more than 600,000 workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $200 billion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From exigencygh at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 02:33:27 2013 From: exigencygh at gmail.com (Simon Ontoyin) Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 23:33:27 -0700 Subject: [governance] (Tangential) US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald In-Reply-To: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> References: <51B71F73.9020308@gmail.com> Message-ID: A good judgement call by the Guardian newspaper, not to publish it all at once. On Jun 11, 2013 1:01 PM, "Riaz K Tayob" wrote: > [haha the WashPo asks the govt before it publishes info... Eat your > heart our China... the US runs a tight ship... its ideology that allows a > 'scoop' to be second guessed by the state... - no aristocracy but boy does > the mainstream media know their place! ] > > International » World NEW YORK, June > 11, 2013 > US surveillance leak: more to come, says Greenwald [image: Glenn > Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to media at a > hotel in Hong Kong on Monday.] > > AP Glenn Greenwald, a reporter for 'The Guardian' newspaper, speaks to > media at a hotel in Hong Kong on Monday. > > The man who claimed to leak state secrets on U.S. government eavesdropping > sought to break the story through a columnist for a U.K.-based publication > who has made no secret of his distaste for intrusions on privacy. > > Edward Snowden brought his information to Glenn Greenwald of *The Guardian > * instead of to the *Washington Post*, with which he had briefly > corresponded. The case illustrates the passion an opinion-driven journalist > can bring to a breaking news story; at the same time it raises questions > about fairness. > > Mr. Greenwald, author of three books in which he argues the government has > trampled on personal rights in the name of protecting national security, > wrote the original stories exposing the extent of the government’s data > collection. Over the weekend, he identified intelligence contractor Snowden > as his source at the latter’s request, and said more stories are coming. > > “What we disclosed was of great public interest, of great importance in a > democracy, that the U.S. government is building this massive spying > apparatus aimed at its own population,” Mr. Greenwald said on Monday on * > MSNBC*’s “Morning Joe.” > > Mr. Greenwald also told The Associated Press that he’s been contacted by > “countless people” over the last 24 hours offering to create legal defence > funds for Mr. Snowden. > > The topic is personal for Mr. Greenwald (46). The former constitutional > and civil rights lawyer, educated at the New York University Law School, > began the “Unclaimed Territory” blog in 2005 and wrote “How Would a Patriot > Act?” a year later. The book criticized the Bush administration for its use > of executive power. > > Mr. Greenwald, now based in Brazil, wrote a regular column for *Salon*for five years until joining > *The Guardian* last year. > > Elaborating on the surveillance programme, he wrote, one programme > collects hundreds of millions of U.S. phone records. The second programme > takes in audio, email and other electronic activities primarily by non-U.S. > nationals who use providers such as Microsoft and Apple. Mr. Greenwald > described the collection of phone records on Monday as “rampant abuse and > it needs sunlight. That’s why this person came forward and that’s why we > published our stories. > > On “Morning Joe,” he snapped that co-host Mika Brzezinski was using “Obama > talking points” when she challenged him with a question. > > “The wall of secrecy behind which they operate is impenetrable and it is a > real menace to democracy,” said Mr. Greenwald, who won a 2010 Online > Journalism Association award for his coverage of Bradley Manning, who is > charged with giving classified documents to WikiLeaks. > > Mr. Snowden, however, had not just gone to Mr. Greenwald with his > information. Barton Gellman of *The Washington Post* wrote on Sunday that > Mr. Snowden had contacted him about the story. He said Mr. Snowden had > asked that the *Post* to publish within 72 hours the full contents of a > presentation he had made about the collection of electronic activity from > the Silicon Valley companies. > > Mr. Gellman said the *Post* would not make any guarantees and sought the > government’s views about whether the information would harm national > security. The *Post* eventually agreed to publish a small sample of what > Mr. Snowden was offering, but Mr. Snowden backed away, writing that “I > regret that we weren’t able to keep this project unilateral,” Mr. Gellman > wrote. > > Mr. Greenwald’s clear point of view doesn’t necessarily weaken the story, > said Jay Rosen, journalism professor at New York University and author of > the *Press Think* blog. > > “In many ways it strengthens it,” he said. Mr. Greenwald has a clear > stance on privacy and national security, but they aren’t partisan; he’s > criticized Democratic President Barack Obama and his Republican > predecessor, George W. Bush. Journalists with strong viewpoints, is a > tradition with a long history in the U.S., Mr. Rosen said. > > “The fact that sources now may choose (outlets) on the basis of commitment > is a fact and journalists whose professional stance is no commitment may > find themselves at a disadvantage,” he said. > > Mr. Greenwald’s known feelings on the issue “does leave a little opening > for critics,” said Ellen Shearer, head of the national security journalism > initiative at Northwestern University. There’s always a risk that such > passion can work against a journalist; some people would worry that facts > contradictory to a predisposed belief could be overlooked. > > To this point, Mr. Shearer said there’s been little pushback on the facts, > with the debate primarily about whether the information should be > published. > > Intelligence officials are investigating the leak and its impact on its > programs. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called the > revelation of the intelligence-gathering programmes reckless and said it > has done “huge, grave damage.” > > *The Guardian* took care not to publish material that may help other > countries improve their eavesdropping or could put the lives of covert > agents at risk, Mr. Greenwald said. > > “We’ve published these things they marked ‘top secret’ that don’t actually > harm national security but conceal what they’ve done from the public,” he > said. > Keywords: Glenn Greenwald > , US surveillance leak > , Edward Snowden > , right to privacy > , U.S. electronic snooping > , US NSA programme, > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IN11_GLENN_GREENWA_1483443f.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 21640 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 02:33:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:33:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B81645.7060805@gmail.com> I would like to see how this issue evolves this time round. I suspect though that the politics is a mere variation on the theme/s played out previously by 'single rooters' i.e. you can do and say pretty much anything but do not question the hegemony of direct or indirect control of US hegemony over CIR. My view is yes it matters for a number of reasons some of which will suffice for now, in response to your question and on a much broader level. If this were a nation I would prefer a Republic without a monarchy over CIR - that is democratic control over /all/ aspects of critical infrastructure. No internet regulation without representation. In democratic discourse anti-democratic positions bear the burden of proof... which the framing of the question sidesteps without justification. The US might have had some credibility before. This is not the case now. The problem is of a global nature, and hence a global solution is required. Here there can be discussion over tactics (short term goals) vs strategy. The way the question is framed limits this on the basis of ICANN's role - ICANN and others are cogs in this machine and hence are subjects of our consideration. Curran had some interesting ideas on this. But, the onus has shifted from the heady days of single rooter hegemony on this list (in terms of argument rather than power): justification is required for excluding CIR from democratic control. This is not only about content, but about potential sites of abuse as Auerbach mentioned previously. If abuse is a concern then so is ICANN & CIR. Any framing that is less than global is too casual given the rights violations that would allow abuse by US and other officials. After this incident, the lack of avenues for action or even a safety valve the judgement regarding ITU or UN control seems positively benign. Concerned US citizens could read a lot into the Madison quote posted earlier as they are now treated no differently from Afghans as much as they would like to believe otherwise. The proper question is, what institutional form/s would legitimately regulate the internet based on standard and universal democratic principles? A country that has been shown to be abusive *is not even a candidate for leadership in this field*. I do not want Swartzification of the entire internet community. If this is anti-American then the other side is anti-democratic, if one were to be Manichean. A lot more argument would be needed to persuade me about the privileged treatment of the US in the international community, there is no presumption. Of course one could argue like McTim that the US built it and the US owns it etc... but that is not argument, it is a legitimate argument for a vested interest that can be dealt with through reason - and from a democractic and global perspective does not pass my muster. On jurisdiction, one would need to see what locus standi can be established for non-Americans to prosecute the case and whether access to justice would be the same for all people. If same cannot be assured then we make common cause with inequality and I want no part in it. More technically, no court will take on a case that renders a verdict empty (I can win a case on a violation in South Africa but the court would not be able to enforce it; and US courts have even reduced the ability of aliens to sue for US multinational violations of human rights so even the trajectory of US law is less conducive than it used to be - see Nigeria case recently), so ICANN or other CIR assets would need to be 'attached' or capable of being 'attached' - hence where they are matters: it is not simply a bilateral arrangement between parties, ICANN & CIR are a 'creatures' of governmental power) - this argument gives presumptive legitimacy to arrangements - arrangements which we regard as plastic if we do not want Uncle Sam playing in our dirty laundry. CIR institutions decisions on trade marks may have extra territorial effect. Hence third parties can be affected by bilateral arrangements. It is a peculiar American liberal myth this view of voluntrism, which frankly I find objectionable. For me what flows from the approach/politics implicit in the framing of the question and flowing from it is a less well articulated variation on Milton's and McTim's internationalisation - despite the discussions, we have not had a response to our equally legitimate objections to what I see essentially as a pro-American or pro-Corporate (I have explained why) position implicit in these definitions of internationalisation. The politics of this position posits a problem of surveillance and not of the right to participate in decisions that affect our lives. The politics of the approach, and most subsequent discussion I have read on this thread, presumes US legitimacy as a strategy. Rejecting such legitimacy (without saying one cannot deal with the situation incrementally) is essential and one would have hoped that the lies, constitutional violations, Swartzing, and complete and utter lack of credibility would have opened up more space. From my perspective it is simple, are we going to take this as a global issue (the violation was global) and put it into democratic terms or are we going to play the same games (as one single rooter put it, don't take us back to the 'troubles' of WSIS) so that the US can continue its abusive role? And it is not anti-American to say it is abusive. Riaz On 2013/06/11 07:12 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that > I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where > I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly > collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has > affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am > actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help > keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be > more open and transparent. > > Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are > not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a > different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American > government’s access to private data? Many of the services that > Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based > companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet > traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies > subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that > ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American > government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? > > I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from > US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and > problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it > would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way > hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. > These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 02:42:40 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:42:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> Message-ID: <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> Nick While I have some issues, from the perspective of an industry association, this is a fabulous enlightened self-interest statement. This seems even better than what some civil society reps have put out - which is just remarkable. Thanks for sharing it as I suspect that non-US companies will be cashing in getting out of the US orbit of technology dependence, especially now that this it is so well known. It remains to be seen however how some companies handle their complicity in obeying the law but violating the constitution in 'sharing' access given the sophistry that that says there is access but not direct access. Also, Snowden is on record as saying that it is just not metadata of Americans that was collected, or capable of being collected. Riaz On 2013/06/12 09:12 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear subscribers, > > As you know, I'm Geneva Representative of CCIA in my day job - this > press release from us would, I thought, be of interest to many of you. > >> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >> >> June 11, 2013 >> >> ** >> >> *CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill >> To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings* >> >> Washington – Recent reports regarding NSA access to phone call >> metadata and online communications and data have highlighted the >> continued importance of government transparency. The Computer & >> Communications Industry Association commends the specific requests of >> both senators and companies today that would help. >> >> CCIA shares the grave concerns expressed about the allegations in >> these disclosures. The Association supports recently proposed >> legislation to declassify the legal decisions providing the basis for >> government surveillance, and joins industry in calling for >> transparency in the frequency which the government seeks data from >> U.S. business. >> >> Without knowledge about how the law is being interpreted and used, >> proper debate about practices is impossible. A group of Senators have >> realized this fact, and introduced a >> billtoday >> that would require the Department of Justice to declassify a large >> number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions. CCIA >> supports this effort, led by Senators Merkley and Lee and joined by 6 >> other Senators. >> >> CCIA has advocated against these sections of FISA for years and >> testified before the Senate in 2007 that we had concerns about >> accountability and transparency. >> The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black: >> >> “To make appropriate decisions about security in a free society, the >> public should be informed about the legal principles governing >> surveillance in America. Transparency is essential; secret law is >> antithetical to democracy.” >> >> “A top concern to consider is whether a secret executive branch >> program using secret courts with oversight by lawmakers briefed >> secretly can provide the adequate checks and balances intended by our >> founders. What is missing is accountability and public scrutiny as >> part of the checks and balances. That can only come with more >> transparency about what our nation is doing so we can discuss as a >> nation whether it’s worth it. >> >> “We join industry in calling on the US government to enable companies >> to report aggregate national security data requests it receives from >> the government. Google issued such a request today in a letter to the >> attorney general and FBI director and Facebook issued a similar >> request. In addition to important transparency goals, there are >> serious First Amendment issues with such gag orders. >> >> “As the industry that provides Internet services and communications >> tools, we disagree with the notion that the scope of government >> surveillance or how frequently these tools are used should be classified. >> >> “In this effort to gather security data, the broader picture of the >> damage to the Internet was lost. Somehow the Internet as a global >> tool, a trade tool and a trusted communication tool for people around >> the world was not adequately weighed into the cost benefit analysis. >> >> “There are broad costs to our nation’s diplomatic, economic and trade >> goals if the millions of people around the world using Internet >> services to communicate are worried about how their information and >> data is being used by the US government.” >> >> About CCIA: >> >> CCIA is a 40 year-old international, nonprofit association of >> computer and communications and Internet industry firms, representing >> a broad cross section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to >> preserving full, fair and open competition throughout our industry. >> Our members employ more than 600,000 workers and generate annual >> revenues in excess of $200 billion. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:16:07 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:16:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] (Tangential): Daniel Ellsberg: Obama Would Have Sought a Life Sentence in My Case In-Reply-To: <51B76D7A.3030306@gmail.com> References: <51B76D7A.3030306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B82E47.9060405@gmail.com> [I will limit my posts on this list regarding news reports so that I can also make comment without cluttering the inboxes needlessly. Ellsberg's views...remarkably democratic, global and humane... what a guy... one could never be anti-American with guru's like this in the US! A long read, but simply brilliant - my emphasis added... ] Daniel Ellsberg: Obama Would Have Sought a Life Sentence in My Case By Timothy B. Lee, The Washington Post 08 June 13 n 1971, an American military analyst named Daniel Ellsberg gave a New York Times reporter a copy of "United States - Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A Study Prepared by the Department of Defense," a multi-volume work that became known as the Pentagon Papers. The massive, classified study painted a candid and unflattering portrait of the military's conduct of the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court rejected the government's request for an injunction against its publication later that year in a 6-3 ruling. Ellsberg became the first person prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act for releasing classified information to the public. But the case was thrown out after the judge learned that the government had engaged in the illegal wiretapping of Ellsberg and other misconduct. Today, Ellsberg is one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama administration's prosecution of leakers. Under President Obama's tenure, the government has prosecuted six individuals for releasing classified information to media organizations. Ellsberg is particularly fierce in his support of Bradley Manning, a young soldier who released a large amount of classified information to WikiLeaks. Manning was arrested in 2010, and his military court-martial began this week. Ellsberg considers Manning a hero, and he argues that there is little difference between what Manning did in 2010 and what Ellsberg did four decades earlier. We spoke by phone on Friday. The transcript has been edited for length and clarity. *Timothy B. Lee: Why are you publicly supporting Bradley Manning?* Daniel Ellsberg: There are two reasons. One is to educate the public on the wars that he was exposing and the information that he put out. He has said his goal was to help the public make informed decisions. We're grateful for that, and we're trying to extend that word and bring that about. Also, I and a lot of other people feel that we need more whistleblowers, and that to allow the government simply to stigmatize them without opposition does not encourage that. I think we've got to convey to people appreciation for the information that we do get, the idea that someone can make a difference. In a military trial there isn't a whole lot of possible influence, but the general atmosphere in the public is bound to make some influence on the judge. [We want the judge to] stop and think that there were some benefits [to Manning's actions]. *TL: In a 1973 interview , you said that a "secondary objective" of releasing the Pentagon Papers was "the hope of changing the tolerance of Executive secrecy that had grown up over the last quarter of a century both in Congress and the courts and in the public at large." How has that "tolerance of secrecy" changed over the last four decades?* DE: There was a period after the Vietnam war, partly due to the Pentagon Papers, and largely due to Watergate, that made people much less tolerant of being lied to, much more aware of how often they were lied to and how the system operated to make that lying possible without accountability. We got the Freedom of Information Act. The FISA court was set up. The FBI was reined in a great deal. The NSA was forbidden to do overhearing of American citizens without a court warrant. That lasted for some years. But 40 years have passed, and after 9/11 in particular, all of those lessons have been lost. There's been very great tolerance that if the magic words "national security," or the new words "homeland security" are invoked, Congress has given the president virtually a free hand in deciding what information they will know as well as the public. I wouldn't count on the current court with its current makeup making the same ruling with the Pentagon Papers as they did 40 years ago. I'm sure that President Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case. Various things that were counted as unconstitutional then have been put in the president's hands now. He's become an elected monarch. Nixon's slogan, "when the president does it, it's not illegal," is pretty much endorsed now. Meaning not only Obama but the people who come after him will have powers that no previous president had. Abilities on surveillance that no country in the history of the world has ever had. Interestingly, after the AP revelations and the [revelations about] Fox News reporter [James Rosen], who was actually charged with aiding and abetting a conspiracy with a source, every journalist has suddenly woken up to the fact that they're under the gun. That may actually have the effect of waking people up to the fact that, for example, Attorney General Holder has been violating the Constitution steadily, and that he should be fired. But fired for what? For doing what had the approval of the president. Holder should be fired for a whole series of actions culminating in this subpoena for James Rosen's cellphone records. I think that would be the first step of resistance in the right direction, of rolling back Obama's campaign against journalism, freedom of the press in national security. *TL: Is government surveillance of journalists more alarming than prosecution of leakers?* DE: Absolutely, but the two go together a little more than might be obvious. First of all, there's no question that President Obama is conducting an unprecedented campaign against unauthorized disclosure. The government had used the Espionage Act against leaks only three times before his administration. He's used it six times . He's doing his best to assure that sources in the government will have reason to fear heavy prison sentences for informing the American public in ways he doesn't want. In other words, he's working very hard to make it a government where he controls all the information. There will be plenty of leaks of classified information, but it will be by his officials in pursuit of his policies. We will not be getting information that the government doesn't want out, that [reveals government actions that are] embarrassing or criminal or reckless, as we saw in Vietnam and Iraq. I think the newspapers really need to address the fact that they're going to be put in the position of printing nothing more than government handouts. There will be in effect a state press, as in so many other countries that lack freedom of the press. I don't think they have really awakened to that change. There would be a lot of newspaper people who would be comfortable with that. But there are a lot who would not. *TL: Do you think Bradley Manning is in a different category than the other people President Obama has prosecuted?* DE: Bradley Manning's case might seem to have no relevance to some of these other civilian disclosures because it's a military court-martial. But the charge they're using against him, the specific one of aid and comfort to the enemy, is one that puts virtually all dissent in this country for government policies at risk. Not only leaks in general, like WikiLeaks, or the New York Times for that matter, but people who aren't in journalism at all.*He's charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a charge that has no element of intention or motive, simply by putting out information that the enemy might be happy to read.* *I think they're going to put into the trial for example, indications that Osama bin Laden downloaded the New York Times, as anyone in the world could do. No doubt Osama was happy to have the world realize that his enemies were committing atrocities that they weren't admitting and that they weren't investigating. It was no intention of WikiLeaks or Bradley Manning to give comfort to Osama bin Laden. That was an inadvertent effect of informing the American public of that, which definitely did need to know it.* Specifically, they're charging Bradley with the video. [A video of a 2007 helicopter strike in Baghdad released by WikiLeaks under the title "Collateral Murder."] That was not in fact classified. But whether it was or not, it was wrongly withheld from Reuters who twice made Freedom of Information Act requests knowing it existed. David Finkel at The Washington Post quoted from the video. Bradley Manning was aware that Reuters had made that request and had been denied and that The Washington Post had access to the video and he believed that they had the video. I don't think it's ever been established whether the Washington Post reporter had the video. That video depicts a war crime, an unarmed, injured civilian being deliberately killed. A squad was going to be in the area in minutes. They also shot at people who were trying to help the victims, including a father and two children. Manning sees this, knows it's a crime, knows the evidence has been refused to Reuters. He knows there's no way for the American public to see that except to put it out. By any standard that's what he should have done. For them to charge him with that shows an outrageous sensibility. Going after the man who exposes the war crime instead of any of the ones who actually did it, none of whom were indicted or investigated. *TL: I think some people have the impression that recent leaks have posed a greater threat to national security, and that the government's prosecutions were therefore more justified, than what you did in the early 1970s. Do you think that's true?* DE: There's a very general impression that Bradley Manning simply dumped out everything that he had access to without any discrimination, and that's very misleading or mistaken on several counts.*He was in a facility that dealt mainly in information higher than top secret in classification. He put out nothing that was higher than secret. [Information he published] was available to hundreds of thousands of people. He had access to material that was much higher than top secret, much more sensitive. He chose not to put any of that out. He explained that in his statement to the court. He said what he put out was no more than embarrassing to the government.* *There was more meat in the material [that Manning released] than I as a Pentagon official would have expected to find in material that was only [classified as] secret. There was information about torture and deaths of civilians. Apparently that is so routine in these current wars that it wasn't regarded as sensitive.* So far the Pentagon has not been able to point to a single example of information that led to harm to an American. If they had, I think we'd have seen pictures of victims on the cover of Time magazine. *TL: How do you feel about the way Manning released the information?* DE: Bradley Manning could have put this information on the Web. Instead, he gave it to an organization that he had reason to expect would give it to media who would have editorial judgment, staff to work on it, and long experience with such material. I would have criticized it if he'd put material that he hadn't read himself directly on the Web. On the other hand, he had no ability to read it all himself. It was just too much. He saw a lot of criminality, a lot of harm. He made a judgment to give it to WikiLeaks. I think that WikiLeaks did make a mistake in their release of the Afghan war logs, which they put on the Web at the same time the newspapers put their selected versions on the Web. I think that was a mistake and could have had some risk associated with it. WikiLeaks learned from the criticism of that. And the Iraq war logs and the State Department cables, they put up only what the newspapers had chosen with a few exceptions. I think that was the right way to do it. *The Afghan war logs were not Bradley Manning's fault. The State cables came out as a result of screwups involving Guardian and other people. Assange and others made mistakes. Bradley Manning had nothing to do with that.* *TL: If you were in Bradley Manning's situation, would you have released as much information as he did?* DE: I probably would not put out materials that I hadn't read. But now we have three years of experience with essentially no harm, and a great deal of good. [Former Tunisian president] Ben Ali, I think, would still be in Tunisia. I don't think you could have counted on the New York Times having put out the Tunisian material that Le Monde chose to put out. That was critical in bringing down Ben Ali. That led to bringing down [former Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak. Looking at that altogether, with that experience, I think his decision to put out a great raft of secret material was justified and I would probably do it myself now if I had the chance. *TL: Are there other examples of good results from Manning's actions?* DE: Here is something that could not have been seen from just one document or a handful of documents. Contrary to Pentagon statements that they "don't do body counts," they were counting civilian bodies. The public Iraq Body Count Web site had compiled some 80,000 civilian deaths from newspaper accounts. But when the Iraq cables came out, they discovered that the army had recorded 20,000 additional deaths. That was one thing where you had to have the whole body of war logs. *There were innumerable - hundreds, possibly more than 1,000 - cases where American military had reported instances or knowledge of torture by the Iraqi authorities to whom we were turning over prisoners. In every one of those cases the cables showed that they were given the instruction not to investigate further. That was an illegal order. Turning over prisoners knowing they would be tortured is itself illegal under international law. It's just as illegal as if we were doing the torture ourselves. International conventions require us to investigate and prosecute if appropriate.* That pattern of illegality goes right up to the commander in chief. I think that has something to do with Obama's strong pursuit of this case. Unlike the Pentagon Papers which did not reveal criminality. They revealed recklessness, lies, but the Pentagon Papers didn't show field-level crimes. What Bradley Manning revealed was a large number of clear-cut war crimes. *I believe there's strong reason to believe that without Bradley Manning's revelations, some 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be in Iraq right now. That had been Obama's plan. He was negotiating to that end. But the disclosure by Bradley Manning of a cable that disclosed that the State Department was aware of an atrocity that we had officially denied, and was neither investigating it further nor prosecuting it, made it politically impossible for the prime minister in Iraq to allow Americans to stay in Iraq with immunity from Iraqi courts.* In the face of that revelation, [pressure from] the political opposition and his own party in Iraq meant that [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] could not allow the troops to remain, because he couldn't grant immunity as President Obama was seeking. A lot more Americans would have died in Iraq if troops had remained there as Obama would have preferred. Bradley Manning saved the lives of many troops. I think that's good. Other people may feel they should have stayed. I certainly would be happy to have caused the end of that commitment to what was after all an aggressive war. *TL: Why do you think Bradley Manning's leaks have received less public support than your release of the Pentagon Papers four decades ago?* DE: First of all, the war was incomparably unpopular by that time because there were more than 40,000 deaths, a number that would reach 58,000 by the end of the war. That made the war unpopular in a way that was not true of Iraq. *We've killed an enormous number of Iraqi civilians, but the public has not shown curiosity about what the number is, whether it's 40,000, 400,000, or 1.5 million. There wasn't pressure on Congress even to find out. The media didn't show great interest in that. American casualties have been around 4,000, not 40,000.* So when the Pentagon Papers revealed that we were lied into in Vietnam, it had a much bigger effect on public opinion. It showed that these men had been wasted in a wrongful unnecessary war by the U.S. We were lied into Iraq to the same degree, in the same way. But it didn't lead to as bloody a war. Second, we had a much more independent Congress than we've had now for more than a decade. Since 9/11 neither party has been willing to challenge the president lest they individually or together be charged with being weak on terrorism. Both Democrats and Republicans have let the president get away with unconstitutional actions as a result. The Congress in those days was much less willing to do that. Third, I was able to speak from the beginning, in terms of what the papers represented and presented my motives in a way that made a lot of sense to the public. A lot of the rest of the public regarded me as a traitor. I heard it as much as Bradley Manning did. The president and vice president both used those words. But I was out on bond and was able to explain what I had done and why I had done it. That definitely had its effect on the trial. *In Bradley Manning's case, he's been held essentially incommunicado. *For three years, no journalist has [talked to] Bradley Manning by phone or in person. He's a figure you've heard nothing from. They haven't allowed anybody to see him. In fact, [former congressman Dennis] Kucinich [D-Ohio] tried formally to get in to see him. He was refused, or put off indefinitely. *The U.N. rapporteur for torture tried officially to see him, privately, which is the only way he's allowed to operate, without the alleged torturers present. Manning was held for 10 months in conditions that the rapporteur claimed [were] at the very least cruel and inhumane conditions. I would say that by itself is grounds for dismissal of the trial. He should have been released for reasons of government misconduct, just like my case.* *All the public has heard are unfavorable accounts with an emphasis on Manning's gender identity. It's clear from his statements to his **informant **that [Manning's sexual orientation] had nothing to do with [the motives for] his revelations. Those were entirely conscientious and political. It had nothing to do with his [personal] difficulties. The idea that he did this because he was "troubled" is defamatory.* *TL: What do you think is the correct legal framework for handling classified information? Some information needs to be kept secret, right?* DE: *William Florence, who drafted most of the regulations [on classified information] in the Pentagon in the 1950s, said at my trial that in his estimation, some 5 percent of what is classified is properly classified at the time. After a few years, about 0.5 percent remains worthy of classification.* Anybody who knows the system knows that Florence is not wrong. Very little meets the requirements of classification within two to three years. So as I say, something between 95 and 99 percent should not be classified at all. Yet it stays classified essentially forever. *So much is classified because it might turn out to be embarrassing. You can't tell at the moment what prediction or recommendation will be a great embarrassment. So classify everything. Some of it is criminal at the time. A lot of it is lying and deception of the public. Some of it is breaking of treaties.* So you need a much stronger Freedom of Information Act. You need more people to declassify information. Money spent on more people declassifying is money very well spent for our democracy. *There should not be a secrets act which criminalizes all release of all classified information. President Obama is using the Espionage Act [as a de facto secrets act] which should have been regarded as unconstitutional.* *TL: But there needs to be some penalty for disclosing secret information, right?* DE: It shouldn't be criminalized. The administrative sanctions against putting out information that your boss doesn't want out, such as taking away clearance, removing access, firing, lost careers, those have kept far too many secrets over the last 50 years. We don't need to have criminal sanctions at all. There are already sanctions for putting out a narrow class of information: intelligence information, nuclear weapons data, identity of covert operations. Putting sanctions there doesn't offend me, though there are some exceptions where that information should come out. In the military, violating any order can put you in prison. But for civilian life, you do not want criminal sanctions for putting out information to the American public. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 461 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 04:19:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:49:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be accomplished? In-Reply-To: References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <0e1a01ce66a9$9cdfc560$d69f5020$@gmail.com> <51B72C22.308@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B82F15.20806@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 08:22 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Parminder, > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Also noteworthy - about the point of willing cooperation or not - > that Google fails to mention this stuff in its so called > transparency report... What is the justification for that... > > Unfortunately the answer is pretty simple: they are prohibited by US > law to mention this kind of requests. Whether this is something > appropriate is another matter, but it is US laws. Bertrand Google has been very proactive and even innovative in revealing all that it can in similar cases in other countries... US law may have prohibited them from telling about each request or even the overall numbers.... However, I dont think it could prohibit them from having told us that some such program exists about foreign information sources about which they, i ie is Google, is not authorised to divulge details... Such a disclaimer should have been carried under the US section in every year's transparency report.. This is the minimum requirement of transparency.. They do mention in case of other countries when they are not authorised to divulge information. Why not in the country of the 'first amendment'.... parminder > > B. > > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 07:13 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> The difficulty Kerry and all is that even if the US companies >> were ``cooperat(ing) within the boundaries of the law``, it was >> (necessarily) a US law bounded by, but enforcing US jurisdiction. >> >> The Internet dominant companies involved are of course companies >> with global reach, global markets, global users and among the >> most active purveyors of an open and free/boundaryless Internet >> and what your post and the bulk of the discussion on these >> matters does not address is that the other (non-US) users of >> these services have essentially no protection under these laws. >> They/we are `fair game`. >> >> In some cases/places we have some protection under our own >> national laws but given that these laws have no jurisdiction (or >> truly effective influence) over the companies themselves (as has >> been demonstrated in various matters particularly in the European >> context and as is currently being articulated to her credit by >> our Canadian Privacy Commissioner) we are truly naked in front of >> these surveillance mechanisms (and given the current state of the >> US security panic we are all under suspicion until proven >> innocent); with by the way no evident means of authenticating >> one`s innocence in any lasting way. >> >> M >> >> *From:*governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of >> *Kerry Brown >> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2013 8:54 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> >> *Subject:* RE: [governance] Is 'tit for tat' all that can be >> accomplished? >> >> The language is too confrontational (i.e. “notes with horror”). >> It will never be taken seriously. >> >> There is no proof that any of the companies you mention >> cooperated willingly. I think that they all have cooperated >> within the boundaries of the law but that is opinion. I haven’t >> seen any proof. I think a far more likely scenario is that the >> NSA uses a variety of methods, some possibly illegal, to collect >> data that probably includes data from the mentioned companies. >> That is speculation. If we are going to express opinions and >> speculation we need to call out that we are doing that. >> >> Kerry Brown >> >> (Proposed text below - very rough first draft to get things rolling) >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus notes with horror the manner in >> which the global population is being subject to such intrusive >> and intense surveillance by the US government in complicity with >> US based companies like Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, >> PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube and Apple. Apart from being against >> all tenets of basic human rights, it exposes the hypocrisy of the >> claims by the US government of a special global legitimacy based >> on the 'historic role' vis a vis the governance of the Internet. >> We are further troubled that in US government statements on the >> PRISM related disclosures, the main defence it seems to take is >> to say that they would never do any such thing to any US citizen. >> What about the non US citizens? And what about the claims of the >> US government that they are responsible to the 'global Internet >> community', a refrain frequently heard from the US government in >> the global Internet governance space? Why the double talk across >> spaces where technical management of the Internet is discussed >> and where 'harder' issues of privacy, security and rights – from >> political and civil rights to economic and social rights - get >> implicated? >> >> We are also extremely disappointed by how the US based global >> companies - Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, >> Skype, YouTube and Apple – betrayed the trust of their global >> customers in cooperating with the US government in such mass >> scale surveillance. Reports on how Twitter seems to have refused >> to cooperate show the kind of options that may have been >> available to these other companies as well. The denials by some >> of these companies about allowing government deep and largely >> indiscriminate access to information on their servers seem to run >> contrary to most news reports, which have not been contradicted >> by US authorities on these aspects. >> >> We wonder if there is a pro quid quo between the US government >> and these US based Internet companies with global operations, >> whereby these companies help further US government's political, >> military, etc interests worldwide and the US government in turn >> puts its political might in service of ensuring an unregulated >> global space for these Internet businesses? A good example of >> this is the insistence by the US government at the OECD and US-EU >> trade talks to maintain lowest possible data privacy standards, >> against considerable resistance by EU countries. >> >> The Internet Governance Caucus demand that the Human Rights >> Council calls for a special report and a special session on this >> issue. It should also proceed to examine ways to develop >> globally-applicable norms and principles on digital privacy and >> basic structures of legal frameworks and due process that ensures >> people's rights in online spaces – both civil and political >> rights as well as social and economic rights. >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Internet & Jurisdiction Project Director, International Diplomatic > Academy (www.internetjurisdiction.net > ) > Member, ICANN Board of Directors > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:26:10 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:26:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me or is there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either through their "official" representative organization(s) or even unofficially through contributions from elders and notables? Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings Nick While I have some issues, from the perspective of an industry association, this is a fabulous enlightened self-interest statement. This seems even better than what some civil society reps have put out - which is just remarkable. Thanks for sharing it as I suspect that non-US companies will be cashing in getting out of the US orbit of technology dependence, especially now that this it is so well known. It remains to be seen however how some companies handle their complicity in obeying the law but violating the constitution in 'sharing' access given the sophistry that that says there is access but not direct access. Also, Snowden is on record as saying that it is just not metadata of Americans that was collected, or capable of being collected. Riaz On 2013/06/12 09:12 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: Dear subscribers, As you know, I'm Geneva Representative of CCIA in my day job - this press release from us would, I thought, be of interest to many of you. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 11, 2013 CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings Washington – Recent reports regarding NSA access to phone call metadata and online communications and data have highlighted the continued importance of government transparency. The Computer & Communications Industry Association commends the specific requests of both senators and companies today that would help. CCIA shares the grave concerns expressed about the allegations in these disclosures. The Association supports recently proposed legislation to declassify the legal decisions providing the basis for government surveillance, and joins industry in calling for transparency in the frequency which the government seeks data from U.S. business. Without knowledge about how the law is being interpreted and used, proper debate about practices is impossible. A group of Senators have realized this fact, and introduced a bill today that would require the Department of Justice to declassify a large number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions. CCIA supports this effort, led by Senators Merkley and Lee and joined by 6 other Senators. CCIA has advocated against these sections of FISA for years and testified before the Senate in 2007 that we had concerns about accountability and transparency. The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black: “To make appropriate decisions about security in a free society, the public should be informed about the legal principles governing surveillance in America. Transparency is essential; secret law is antithetical to democracy.” “A top concern to consider is whether a secret executive branch program using secret courts with oversight by lawmakers briefed secretly can provide the adequate checks and balances intended by our founders. What is missing is accountability and public scrutiny as part of the checks and balances. That can only come with more transparency about what our nation is doing so we can discuss as a nation whether it’s worth it. “We join industry in calling on the US government to enable companies to report aggregate national security data requests it receives from the government. Google issued such a request today in a letter to the attorney general and FBI director and Facebook issued a similar request. In addition to important transparency goals, there are serious First Amendment issues with such gag orders. “As the industry that provides Internet services and communications tools, we disagree with the notion that the scope of government surveillance or how frequently these tools are used should be classified. “In this effort to gather security data, the broader picture of the damage to the Internet was lost. Somehow the Internet as a global tool, a trade tool and a trusted communication tool for people around the world was not adequately weighed into the cost benefit analysis. “There are broad costs to our nation’s diplomatic, economic and trade goals if the millions of people around the world using Internet services to communicate are worried about how their information and data is being used by the US government.” About CCIA: CCIA is a 40 year-old international, nonprofit association of computer and communications and Internet industry firms, representing a broad cross section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, fair and open competition throughout our industry. Our members employ more than 600,000 workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $200 billion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:27:52 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:57:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] (Tangential): Daniel Ellsberg: Obama Would Have Sought a Life Sentence in My Case In-Reply-To: <51B82E47.9060405@gmail.com> References: <51B76D7A.3030306@gmail.com> <51B82E47.9060405@gmail.com> Message-ID: So shouldnt we all be terrified? Or at the very least scared - if the government does do all of this to their own citizens, what would it choose to do (or consider 'acceptable' collateral damage) when its other countries or citizens of other countries... ? -C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > [I will limit my posts on this list regarding news reports so that I can > also make comment without cluttering the inboxes needlessly. Ellsberg's > views...remarkably democratic, global and humane... what a guy... one could > never be anti-American with guru's like this in the US! A long read, but > simply brilliant - my emphasis added... ] > > Daniel Ellsberg: Obama Would Have Sought a Life Sentence in My Case > > By Timothy B. Lee, The Washington Post > > 08 June 13 > > > > n 1971, an American military analyst named Daniel Ellsberg gave a New York > Times reporter a copy of "United States - Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967: A > Study Prepared by the Department of Defense," a multi-volume work that > became known as the Pentagon Papers. The massive, classified study painted > a candid and unflattering portrait of the military's conduct of the Vietnam > War. The Supreme Court rejected the government's requestfor an injunction against its publication later that year in a 6-3 ruling. > > Ellsberg became the first person prosecuted under the 1917 Espionage Act > for releasing classified information to the public. But the case was thrown > out after the judge learned that the government had engaged in the illegal > wiretapping of Ellsberg and other misconduct. > > Today, Ellsberg is one of the most outspoken critics of the Obama > administration's prosecution of leakers. Under President Obama's tenure, > the government has prosecuted six individuals for releasing classified > information to media organizations. > > Ellsberg is particularly fierce in his support of Bradley Manning, a young > soldier who released a large amount of classified information to WikiLeaks. > Manning was arrested in 2010, and his military court-martial began this > week. Ellsberg considers Manning a hero, and he argues that there is little > difference between what Manning did in 2010 and what Ellsberg did four > decades earlier. We spoke by phone on Friday. The transcript has been > edited for length and clarity. > > *Timothy B. Lee: Why are you publicly supporting Bradley Manning?* > > Daniel Ellsberg: There are two reasons. One is to educate the public on > the wars that he was exposing and the information that he put out. He has > said his goal was to help the public make informed decisions. We're > grateful for that, and we're trying to extend that word and bring that > about. > > Also, I and a lot of other people feel that we need more whistleblowers, > and that to allow the government simply to stigmatize them without > opposition does not encourage that. I think we've got to convey to people > appreciation for the information that we do get, the idea that someone can > make a difference. > > In a military trial there isn't a whole lot of possible influence, but the > general atmosphere in the public is bound to make some influence on the > judge. [We want the judge to] stop and think that there were some benefits > [to Manning's actions]. > > *TL: In a 1973 interview, > you said that a "secondary objective" of releasing the Pentagon Papers was > "the hope of changing the tolerance of Executive secrecy that had grown up > over the last quarter of a century both in Congress and the courts and in > the public at large." How has that "tolerance of secrecy" changed over the > last four decades?* > > DE: There was a period after the Vietnam war, partly due to the Pentagon > Papers, and largely due to Watergate, that made people much less tolerant > of being lied to, much more aware of how often they were lied to and how > the system operated to make that lying possible without accountability. We > got the Freedom of Information Act. The FISA court was set up. The FBI was > reined in a great deal. The NSA was forbidden to do overhearing of American > citizens without a court warrant. That lasted for some years. > > But 40 years have passed, and after 9/11 in particular, all of those > lessons have been lost. There's been very great tolerance that if the magic > words "national security," or the new words "homeland security" are > invoked, Congress has given the president virtually a free hand in deciding > what information they will know as well as the public. I wouldn't count on > the current court with its current makeup making the same rulingwith the Pentagon Papers as they did 40 years ago. I'm sure that President > Obama would have sought a life sentence in my case. > > Various things that were counted as unconstitutional then have been put in > the president's hands now. He's become an elected monarch. Nixon's slogan, > "when the president does it, it's not illegal," is pretty much endorsed > now. Meaning not only Obama but the people who come after him will have > powers that no previous president had. Abilities on surveillance that no > country in the history of the world has ever had. > > Interestingly, after the AP revelationsand the [revelations about] Fox News reporter [James Rosen], who was actually > chargedwith aiding and abetting a conspiracy with a source, every journalist has > suddenly woken up to the fact that they're under the gun. That may actually > have the effect of waking people up to the fact that, for example, Attorney > General Holder has been violating the Constitution steadily, and that he > should be fired. But fired for what? For doing what had the approval of the > president. > > Holder should be fired for a whole series of actions culminating in this > subpoena for James Rosen's cellphone records. I think that would be the > first step of resistance in the right direction, of rolling back Obama's > campaign against journalism, freedom of the press in national security. > > *TL: Is government surveillance of journalists more alarming than > prosecution of leakers?* > > DE: Absolutely, but the two go together a little more than might be > obvious. First of all, there's no question that President Obama is > conducting an unprecedented campaign against unauthorized disclosure. The > government had used the Espionage Act against leaks only three times before > his administration. He's used it six times. > He's doing his best to assure that sources in the government will have > reason to fear heavy prison sentences for informing the American public in > ways he doesn't want. > > In other words, he's working very hard to make it a government where he > controls all the information. There will be plenty of leaks of classified > information, but it will be by his officials in pursuit of his policies. We > will not be getting information that the government doesn't want out, that > [reveals government actions that are] embarrassing or criminal or reckless, > as we saw in Vietnam and Iraq. > > I think the newspapers really need to address the fact that they're going > to be put in the position of printing nothing more than government > handouts. There will be in effect a state press, as in so many other > countries that lack freedom of the press. I don't think they have really > awakened to that change. There would be a lot of newspaper people who would > be comfortable with that. But there are a lot who would not. > > *TL: Do you think Bradley Manning is in a different category than the > other people President Obama has prosecuted?* > > DE: Bradley Manning's case might seem to have no relevance to some of > these other civilian disclosures because it's a military court-martial. But > the charge they're using against him, the specific one of aid and comfort > to the enemy, is one that puts virtually all dissent in this country for > government policies at risk. Not only leaks in general, like WikiLeaks, or > the New York Times for that matter, but people who aren't in journalism at > all.* He's charged with giving aid and comfort to the enemy, a charge > that has no element of intention or motive, simply by putting out > information that the enemy might be happy to read.* > > *I think they're going to put into the trial for example, indications > that Osama bin Laden downloaded the New York Times, as anyone in the world > could do. No doubt Osama was happy to have the world realize that his > enemies were committing atrocities that they weren't admitting and that > they weren't investigating. It was no intention of WikiLeaks or Bradley > Manning to give comfort to Osama bin Laden. That was an inadvertent effect > of informing the American public of that, which definitely did need to know > it.* > > Specifically, they're charging Bradley with the video. [A video of a 2007 > helicopter strike in Baghdadreleased by WikiLeaks under the title "Collateral Murder."] That was not in > fact classified. But whether it was or not, it was wrongly withheld from > Reuters who twice made Freedom of Information Act requests knowing it > existed. David Finkel at The Washington Post quoted from the video. Bradley > Manning was aware that Reuters had made that request and had been denied > and that The Washington Post had access to the video and he believed that > they had the video. I don't think it's ever been established whether the > Washington Post reporter had the video. > > That video depicts a war crime, an unarmed, injured civilian being > deliberately killed. A squad was going to be in the area in minutes. They > also shot at people who were trying to help the victims, including a father > and two children. > > Manning sees this, knows it's a crime, knows the evidence has been refused > to Reuters. He knows there's no way for the American public to see that > except to put it out. By any standard that's what he should have done. For > them to charge him with that shows an outrageous sensibility. Going after > the man who exposes the war crime instead of any of the ones who actually > did it, none of whom were indicted or investigated. > > *TL: I think some people have the impression that recent leaks have posed > a greater threat to national security, and that the government's > prosecutions were therefore more justified, than what you did in the early > 1970s. Do you think that's true?* > > DE: There's a very general impression that Bradley Manning simply dumped > out everything that he had access to without any discrimination, and that's > very misleading or mistaken on several counts.* He was in a facility that > dealt mainly in information higher than top secret in classification. He > put out nothing that was higher than secret. [Information he published] was > available to hundreds of thousands of people. He had access to material > that was much higher than top secret, much more sensitive. He chose not to > put any of that out. He explained that in his statement to the court. He > said what he put out was no more than embarrassing to the government.* > > *There was more meat in the material [that Manning released] than I as a > Pentagon official would have expected to find in material that was only > [classified as] secret. There was information about torture and deaths of > civilians. Apparently that is so routine in these current wars that it > wasn't regarded as sensitive.* > > So far the Pentagon has not been able to point to a single example of > information that led to harm to an American. If they had, I think we'd have > seen pictures of victims on the cover of Time magazine. > > *TL: How do you feel about the way Manning released the information?* > > DE: Bradley Manning could have put this information on the Web. Instead, > he gave it to an organization that he had reason to expect would give it to > media who would have editorial judgment, staff to work on it, and long > experience with such material. I would have criticized it if he'd put > material that he hadn't read himself directly on the Web. > > On the other hand, he had no ability to read it all himself. It was just > too much. He saw a lot of criminality, a lot of harm. He made a judgment to > give it to WikiLeaks. I think that WikiLeaks did make a mistake in their > release of the Afghan war logs, which they put on the Web at the same time > the newspapers put their selected versions on the Web. I think that was a > mistake and could have had some risk associated with it. > > WikiLeaks learned from the criticism of that. And the Iraq war logs and > the State Department cables, they put up only what the newspapers had > chosen with a few exceptions. I think that was the right way to do it. > > *The Afghan war logs were not Bradley Manning's fault. The State cables > came out as a result of screwups involving Guardian and other people. > Assange and others made mistakes. Bradley Manning had nothing to do with > that.* > > *TL: If you were in Bradley Manning's situation, would you have released > as much information as he did?* > > DE: I probably would not put out materials that I hadn't read. But now we > have three years of experience with essentially no harm, and a great deal > of good. [Former Tunisian president] Ben Ali, I think, would still be in > Tunisia. I don't think you could have counted on the New York Times having > put out the Tunisian material that Le Monde chose to put out. That was > critical in bringing down Ben Ali. That led to bringing down [former > Egyptian president Hosni] Mubarak. Looking at that altogether, with that > experience, I think his decision to put out a great raft of secret material > was justified and I would probably do it myself now if I had the chance. > > *TL: Are there other examples of good results from Manning's actions?* > > DE: Here is something that could not have been seen from just one document > or a handful of documents. Contrary to Pentagon statements that they "don't > do body counts," they were counting civilian bodies. The public Iraq Body > Count Web site had compiled some 80,000 > civilian deaths from newspaper accounts. But when the Iraq cables came out, > they discovered that the army had recorded 20,000 additional deaths. That > was one thing where you had to have the whole body of war logs. > > *There were innumerable - hundreds, possibly more than 1,000 - cases > where American military had reported instances or knowledge of torture by > the Iraqi authorities to whom we were turning over prisoners. In every one > of those cases the cables showed that they were given the instruction not > to investigate further. That was an illegal order. Turning over prisoners > knowing they would be tortured is itself illegal under international law. > It's just as illegal as if we were doing the torture ourselves. > International conventions require us to investigate and prosecute if > appropriate.* > > That pattern of illegality goes right up to the commander in chief. I > think that has something to do with Obama's strong pursuit of this case. > Unlike the Pentagon Papers which did not reveal criminality. They revealed > recklessness, lies, but the Pentagon Papers didn't show field-level crimes. > What Bradley Manning revealed was a large number of clear-cut war crimes. > > *I believe there's strong reason to believe that without Bradley > Manning's revelations, some 20,000 to 30,000 troops would be in Iraq right > now. That had been Obama's plan. He was negotiating to that end. But the > disclosure by Bradley Manning of a cable that disclosed that the State > Department was aware of an atrocity that we had officially denied, and was > neither investigating it further nor prosecuting it, made it politically > impossible for the prime minister in Iraq to allow Americans to stay in > Iraq with immunity from Iraqi courts.* > > In the face of that revelation, [pressure from] the political opposition > and his own party in Iraq meant that [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki] > could not allow the troops to remain, because he couldn't grant immunity as > President Obama was seeking. > > A lot more Americans would have died in Iraq if troops had remained there > as Obama would have preferred. Bradley Manning saved the lives of many > troops. I think that's good. Other people may feel they should have stayed. > I certainly would be happy to have caused the end of that commitment to > what was after all an aggressive war. > > *TL: Why do you think Bradley Manning's leaks have received less public > support than your release of the Pentagon Papers four decades ago?* > > DE: First of all, the war was incomparably unpopular by that time because > there were more than 40,000 deaths, a number that would reach 58,000 by the > end of the war. That made the war unpopular in a way that was not true of > Iraq. > > *We've killed an enormous number of Iraqi civilians, but the public has > not shown curiosity about what the number is, whether it's 40,000, 400,000, > or 1.5 million. There wasn't pressure on Congress even to find out. The > media didn't show great interest in that. American casualties have been > around 4,000, not 40,000.* > > So when the Pentagon Papers revealed that we were lied into in Vietnam, it > had a much bigger effect on public opinion. It showed that these men had > been wasted in a wrongful unnecessary war by the U.S. We were lied into > Iraq to the same degree, in the same way. But it didn't lead to as bloody a > war. > > Second, we had a much more independent Congress than we've had now for > more than a decade. Since 9/11 neither party has been willing to challenge > the president lest they individually or together be charged with being weak > on terrorism. Both Democrats and Republicans have let the president get > away with unconstitutional actions as a result. The Congress in those days > was much less willing to do that. > > Third, I was able to speak from the beginning, in terms of what the papers > represented and presented my motives in a way that made a lot of sense to > the public. A lot of the rest of the public regarded me as a traitor. I > heard it as much as Bradley Manning did. The president and vice president > both used those words. But I was out on bond and was able to explain what I > had done and why I had done it. That definitely had its effect on the trial. > > *In Bradley Manning's case, he's been held essentially incommunicado. *For > three years, no journalist has [talked to] Bradley Manning by phone or in > person. He's a figure you've heard nothing from. They haven't allowed > anybody to see him. In fact, [former congressman Dennis] Kucinich [D-Ohio] > tried formally to get in to see him. He was refused, or put off > indefinitely. > > *The U.N. rapporteur for torture tried officially to see him, privately, > which is the only way he's allowed to operate, without the alleged > torturers present. Manning was held for 10 months in conditions that the > rapporteur claimed [were] at the very least cruel and inhumane conditions. > I would say that by itself is grounds for dismissal of the trial. He should > have been released for reasons of government misconduct, just like my case. > * > > *All the public has heard are unfavorable accounts with an emphasis on > Manning's gender identity. It's clear from his statements to his ** > informant ** that [Manning's > sexual orientation] had nothing to do with [the motives for] his > revelations. Those were entirely conscientious and political. It had > nothing to do with his [personal] difficulties. The idea that he did this > because he was "troubled" is defamatory.* > > *TL: What do you think is the correct legal framework for handling > classified information? Some information needs to be kept secret, right?* > > DE: *William Florence, who drafted most of the regulations [on classified > information] in the Pentagon in the 1950s, said at my trial that in his > estimation, some 5 percent of what is classified is properly classified at > the time. After a few years, about 0.5 percent remains worthy of > classification.* > > Anybody who knows the system knows that Florence is not wrong. Very little > meets the requirements of classification within two to three years. So as I > say, something between 95 and 99 percent should not be classified at all. > Yet it stays classified essentially forever. > > *So much is classified because it might turn out to be embarrassing. You > can't tell at the moment what prediction or recommendation will be a great > embarrassment. So classify everything. Some of it is criminal at the time. > A lot of it is lying and deception of the public. Some of it is breaking of > treaties.* > > So you need a much stronger Freedom of Information Act. You need more > people to declassify information. Money spent on more people declassifying > is money very well spent for our democracy. > > *There should not be a secrets act which criminalizes all release of all > classified information. President Obama is using the Espionage Act [as a de > facto secrets act] which should have been regarded as unconstitutional.* > > *TL: But there needs to be some penalty for disclosing secret > information, right?* > > DE: It shouldn't be criminalized. The administrative sanctions against > putting out information that your boss doesn't want out, such as taking > away clearance, removing access, firing, lost careers, those have kept far > too many secrets over the last 50 years. We don't need to have criminal > sanctions at all. > > There are already sanctions for putting out a narrow class of information: > intelligence information, nuclear weapons data, identity of covert > operations. Putting sanctions there doesn't offend me, though there are > some exceptions where that information should come out. > > In the military, violating any order can put you in prison. But for > civilian life, you do not want criminal sanctions for putting out > information to the American public. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 461 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:31:41 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 11:31:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] {S} Internet surveillance (was Re: Is 'tit for tat'...) In-Reply-To: <09A2178C-C7F9-457E-A8C3-6FE072C4A3ED@gmail.com> References: <14B6827B-2583-4943-BCB0-972734054DA7@ccianet.org> <51B6E70A.60004@apc.org> <51B70710.80604@itforchange.net> <20130611181424.53d215a1@quill.bollow.ch> <09A2178C-C7F9-457E-A8C3-6FE072C4A3ED@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B831ED.5060301@gmail.com> Here we may want to address national security as being a site of abuse, to which even US judges are complicit in, as expert reveal that only 5% of what is classified should be classified and after 3 years that reduces to about 0.5%. In other words, national security is being abused, and all our rights have been violated. The real bind however is how to balance national interests with the role of the US as the self-appointed global policeman of the world. Anything that shows deference to this role should be roundly condemned as nation states are sovereign and equal. De facto things may be different, but de jure we need to reject any privileges to simply being American (i.e. that which is not earned or by consent). And while for McTim the US national ecosystem in which CIR and Internet governance take place is as irrelevant as other freedoms, I take a different view. Unless there is democratic control (or aliens are given the right to vote in the US) that meets human rights standards the US should be treated differently in this regard - more of a focus, instead of the NECESSARY (but distracting) lopsided focus on other countries (the archives will bear me out on this). The focus now specifically on the institutions and practices of the US. This should not leave other countries off the hook, but such focus should be proportionate to the governance power exerted over the internet. On 2013/06/12 05:54 AM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 04:37:12 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:07:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B83338.7090603@itforchange.net> Kerry Lets agree to you contention - it does not matter 'which legal system ICANN operates under" (although I think it does). Now, if this is so, it should be ideal that ICANN operates under an international legal system, under UN auspice, rather than of one country... Just looks and feels nicer, fairer, democratic etc etc. No? Even if just for its symbolic value - and you know, in politics symbolic values count for a lot. However, moment you propose that, there are shrill cries all over - UN out to control the Internet. Now, how does the logic you propose suddenly change completely when it is the UN/ international legal regime instead of US... That is the paradox. And I will be happy to hear your response to it. So, the simple question is this: How when US exercises oversight over the ICANN, it is contended that the 'oversight' issue bears, or can bear, no connection to content, and other control related issues, whatsoever; but when it is proposed that an international/ UN body takes up oversight of ICANN, these issues suddenly become the most relevant ones?? parminder On Tuesday 11 June 2013 09:42 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: > > The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that > I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where > I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly > collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has > affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am > actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help > keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be > more open and transparent. > > Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are > not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a > different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American > government’s access to private data? Many of the services that > Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based > companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet > traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies > subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that > ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American > government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? > > I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from > US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and > problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it > would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way > hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. > These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 04:38:28 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 01:38:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130612083828.GA23369@hserus.net> michael gurstein [12/06/13 04:26 -0400]: >With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me or >is there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either >through their "official" representative organization(s) or even >unofficially through contributions from elders and notables? "Is there not" To which - as I said earlier, the answer is "there is, but you aren't listening to it". Next conspiracy theory please. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 04:41:21 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:11:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51B83338.7090603@itforchange.net> References: <51B83338.7090603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B83431.4080302@itforchange.net> This said, I agree with your contention that the real problem is the over-concentration of Internet traffic flows, applications base, etc in the US, and it is this issue that needs to be addressed, through greater decentralisation, and also global norms on cross border data flows and so on... parminder On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:07 PM, parminder wrote: > > Kerry > > Lets agree to you contention - it does not matter 'which legal system > ICANN operates under" (although I think it does). > > Now, if this is so, it should be ideal that ICANN operates under an > international legal system, under UN auspice, rather than of one > country... Just looks and feels nicer, fairer, democratic etc etc. No? > Even if just for its symbolic value - and you know, in politics > symbolic values count for a lot. > > However, moment you propose that, there are shrill cries all over - UN > out to control the Internet. Now, how does the logic you propose > suddenly change completely when it is the UN/ international legal > regime instead of US... That is the paradox. And I will be happy to > hear your response to it. > > So, the simple question is this: How when US exercises oversight over > the ICANN, it is contended that the 'oversight' issue bears, or can > bear, no connection to content, and other control related issues, > whatsoever; but when it is proposed that an international/ UN body > takes up oversight of ICANN, these issues suddenly become the most > relevant ones?? > > parminder > > > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 09:42 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >> >> The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that >> I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where >> I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments >> secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot >> Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot >> Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada >> to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government >> to be more open and transparent. >> >> Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that >> are not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved >> to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the >> American government’s access to private data? Many of the services >> that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American >> based companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet >> traffic is carried on communications media owned by American >> companies subject to American law. How would changing the >> jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the >> American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with >> relative ease? >> >> I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from >> US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered >> and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it >> would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way >> hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. >> These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. >> >> Kerry Brown >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:48:06 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 04:48:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <20130612083828.GA23369@hserus.net> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> <20130612083828.GA23369@hserus.net> Message-ID: <134101ce6749$93d2c3a0$bb784ae0$@gmail.com> Okay give us references... rather than your silly and trivializing commentaries... Tks, M -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: 'Riaz K Tayob' Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings michael gurstein [12/06/13 04:26 -0400]: >With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me >or is there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either >through their "official" representative organization(s) or even >unofficially through contributions from elders and notables? "Is there not" To which - as I said earlier, the answer is "there is, but you aren't listening to it". Next conspiracy theory please. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 04:49:11 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:19:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51B83431.4080302@itforchange.net> References: <51B83338.7090603@itforchange.net> <51B83431.4080302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3589D684-1E24-42BD-8E82-BBB10638C26B@hserus.net> Not really. Applications based in the USA is a myth for several of the largest providers, who have a global network with data centers spread around the world. If you use a large email provider, Your mail is just as likely to be located in Bombay or Singapore rather than in the USA. Greater decentralization can be achieved by the growth of more local services, or for worldwide providers, by architecting their systems to be part of a global network of data centers. --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:11, parminder wrote: > > This said, I agree with your contention that the real problem is the over-concentration of Internet traffic flows, applications base, etc in the US, and it is this issue that needs to be addressed, through greater decentralisation, and also global norms on cross border data flows and so on... parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:07 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> Kerry >> >> Lets agree to you contention - it does not matter 'which legal system ICANN operates under" (although I think it does). >> >> Now, if this is so, it should be ideal that ICANN operates under an international legal system, under UN auspice, rather than of one country... Just looks and feels nicer, fairer, democratic etc etc. No? Even if just for its symbolic value - and you know, in politics symbolic values count for a lot. >> >> However, moment you propose that, there are shrill cries all over - UN out to control the Internet. Now, how does the logic you propose suddenly change completely when it is the UN/ international legal regime instead of US... That is the paradox. And I will be happy to hear your response to it. >> >> So, the simple question is this: How when US exercises oversight over the ICANN, it is contended that the 'oversight' issue bears, or can bear, no connection to content, and other control related issues, whatsoever; but when it is proposed that an international/ UN body takes up oversight of ICANN, these issues suddenly become the most relevant ones?? >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 09:42 PM, Kerry Brown wrote: >>> The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where I’m coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more open and transparent. >>> >>> Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American government’s access to private data? Many of the services that Internet users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet traffic is carried on communications media owned by American companies subject to American law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on anybody they could do so with relative ease? >>> >>> I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. These are two distinct issues that will require different solutions. >>> >>> Kerry Brown > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 04:55:36 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:25:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced anything close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces today with PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, especially NGOS etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc etc.... So, this letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before Edward Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them from writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they can certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went public despite google and the US gov is what would really count. parminder > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kstouray at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 04:57:40 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 08:57:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, To help frame the discussion, here's the link to ICANN's IANA contract: http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf There's also the USDOC amendment to the renewal of the ICANN-Verisign contract: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amendment_32_11292012.pdf As has been pointed out, ICANN doesn't have anything to do with Internet content and whether or not it is monitored. However, there's no doubt that revelations about US government surveillance of Internet data harms their case in the debate on multi-stakeholder Internet governance, including of ICANN itself and matters under its purview. Katim On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > That would be my understanding as well Nick. However in ICANN's case I > understand there are clauses that prevent them shifting HQ to another > jurisdiction/country. > > -C > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> The law governing a contract is entirely separate from the legal >> jurisdiction in which the parties to it are domiciled. >> On 11 Jun 2013 23:19, "Avri Doria" wrote: >> >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Well said Nick. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little discussion there >>> is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on (objection to >>> overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive with it; it >>> seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points against factions. >>> > >>> > Is this really the best that this list can do? >>> > >>> > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with statements and the >>> like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points against one >>> another, or score points for the public interest? >>> >>> - -- >>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 >>> zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA >>> fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ >>> s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA >>> uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex >>> JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= >>> =dPgW >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 05:04:50 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 05:04:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Global Principles on National Security Message-ID: <135301ce674b$ea663ce0$bf32b6a0$@gmail.com> Very pertinent and extremely timely... after a very quick run through, perhaps something that could be supported as part of any statement produced by either the IGC or BB. M -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:10 AM To: liberationtech Subject: [liberationtech] Global Principles on National Security Whistleblower Hi all, this email to share the today release of the "The Global Principles on National Security and Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles)" by the Open Society Foundation. That's a set of Policy Guidelines for the protection of National Security Whistleblower. Those Principles address the topic of Whistleblowing and National Security and has been done in cooperation with 22 organizations: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/global-principles-nationa l-security-and-freedom-information-tshwane-principles As a summary i suggest reading "Understanding the Tshwane Principles": http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/briefing-papers/understanding-tshwane- principles It is very interesting to note that Snowden, the Whistleblower of NSA PRISM saga, would had been protected under Principles 43 and 46 (and maybe under Principle 40). A blog post with an analysis on the case related to that principles is being prepared. For media and analysts interested on it, they may contact sandra.coliver at opensocietyfoundations.org and jonathan.birchall at opensocietyfoundations.org . Regards, -- Fabio Pietrosanti (naif) HERMES - Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights http://logioshermes.org - http://globaleaks.org - http://tor2web.org -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 05:09:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:39:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <1DD1F5EC-E634-47B7-BFBD-772EC55A0CC3@ella.com> References: <1DD1F5EC-E634-47B7-BFBD-772EC55A0CC3@ella.com> Message-ID: <51B83ABC.6090701@itforchange.net> Of course, moving ICANN oversight away from unilateral control of the US is to move the root authorisation power away, and thus to move the IANA contract granting power, to an international system... It is not so important to move ICANN physically out of the US, where it can stay under a host country agreement, which applies to international organisations.... On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > On 11 Jun 2013, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote: > >> The main thing keeping ICANN in the USA, apart from the possibility of it being a friendly tax and employee recruitment[1] environment, is the need for them to be based in the USA in order to hold the IANA contract. > > doesn't the contractual nature of all of their relationships sort of keep them in the US as well. If they provide a regulatory function via contract, don't they need to be were the contracts are? > > or at least keep part of it where the contracts are: e,g, the new GDD > > > avri > > GDD - generic domains division -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 05:10:03 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:40:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <134101ce6749$93d2c3a0$bb784ae0$@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> <20130612083828.GA23369@hserus.net> <134101ce6749$93d2c3a0$bb784ae0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7B52B009-7129-4E7A-B5F9-A2888C94A18D@hserus.net> Please feel free to do your own googling. I am reasonably sure others have pointed out at least two such statements in this thread alone. If you want more, they are out there to find. As for silly and trivializing, quite possibly better that than the sort of mean spirited insinuating politicking I see from one of the splinter rump minority on this list. --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:18, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Okay give us references... rather than your silly and trivializing > commentaries... > > Tks, > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:38 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Cc: 'Riaz K Tayob' > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government > Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings > > michael gurstein [12/06/13 04:26 -0400]: >> With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me >> or is there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either >> through their "official" representative organization(s) or even >> unofficially through contributions from elders and notables? > > "Is there not" > > To which - as I said earlier, the answer is "there is, but you aren't > listening to it". > > Next conspiracy theory please. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 05:13:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:43:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9CF1584C-CB28-4F2A-8506-077AA345A158@hserus.net> Google routinely publishes requests for takedown / information from various governments around the world, including a large number of requests from the USG .. the only time they don't is when any government uses a process that forbids such disclosure. In this case they are bound by law not to disclose these requests, so they don't. And they have published a copy of the letter they sent requesting permission - which they arent likely to get - to post these requests. So yes this is an exercise in PR - it also needs to be seen in perspective with Google's larger pattern of full disclosure in such cases. --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:25, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced anything close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces today with PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, especially NGOS etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc etc.... So, this letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... > > I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before Edward Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them from writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they can certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went public despite google and the US gov is what would really count. > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 05:14:48 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:14:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51B83ABC.6090701@itforchange.net> References: <1DD1F5EC-E634-47B7-BFBD-772EC55A0CC3@ella.com> <51B83ABC.6090701@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B83C08.8020800@gmail.com> But the old argument on any change was, well you have to talk to IANA about that, or Verisign, or ccTLDs or RIRs etc etc, and you have to have money and skills etc (funny libertarian arguments in support of de facto 'oligopolies' or 'monopolies'). Before it was divide and rule. Now it is fragment and dominate. And predictably we will hear about the sanctity of contracts. But after robosigning (where banks got the loot kicking poor folk out of their homes on FRAUDULENT documents while the USG did little about it, and even when they did they acted to protect the banks) this argument will not hold water. Apologies, we have been here before so I am just running ahead of script so that we can deal with new issues rather than tread the same ground with 'evolved single rooters'... time to up the game... Riaz On 2013/06/12 12:09 PM, parminder wrote: > > Of course, moving ICANN oversight away from unilateral control of the > US is to move the root authorisation power away, and thus to move the > IANA contract granting power, to an international system... It is not > so important to move ICANN physically out of the US, where it can stay > under a host country agreement, which applies to international > organisations.... > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 02:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> On 11 Jun 2013, at 15:47, Roland Perry wrote: >> >>> The main thing keeping ICANN in the USA, apart from the possibility of it being a friendly tax and employee recruitment[1] environment, is the need for them to be based in the USA in order to hold the IANA contract. >> doesn't the contractual nature of all of their relationships sort of keep them in the US as well. If they provide a regulatory function via contract, don't they need to be were the contracts are? >> >> or at least keep part of it where the contracts are: e,g, the new GDD >> >> >> avri >> >> GDD - generic domains division > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 05:07:20 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:07:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B83A48.9070400@gmail.com> Thanks for posting this. And here is the inimitable Karl Auerbach (of course tech has moved on with caching etc) but the same issues apply (there is one excellent small post by him, but I can't find it...): http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-structural-principles-for-internet-governance.pdf Shall we have internet governance as a Republic with democratic control over all aspects, or should we have a little democracy with a CIR monarchy? The USG does not follow its own constitution and so even 'reasonable' monarchic CIR arrangements. As such these arrangements are interesting, as Nassim Taleb said about the US financial system but is common sense apt here as we get lost in technocracy (and which is the prism from which I read 'leave CIR out' after this): "People who were driving a school bus blindfolded (and crashed it) should never be given a new bus. The economics establishment (universities, regulators, central bankers, government officials, various organisations staffed with economists) lost its legitimacy with the failure of the system. It is irresponsible and foolish to put our trust in the ability of such experts to get us out of this mess. Instead, find the smart people whose hands are clean. " On 2013/06/12 11:57 AM, Katim S. Touray wrote: > Dear all, > > To help frame the discussion, here's the link to ICANN's IANA contract: > > http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/contract-01oct12-en.pdf > > There's also the USDOC amendment to the renewal of the ICANN-Verisign > contract: > > http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/amendment_32_11292012.pdf > > As has been pointed out, ICANN doesn't have anything to do with > Internet content and whether or not it is monitored. However, there's > no doubt that revelations about US government surveillance of Internet > data harms their case in the debate on multi-stakeholder Internet > governance, including of ICANN itself and matters under its purview. > > Katim > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:40 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > > wrote: > > That would be my understanding as well Nick. However in ICANN's > case I understand there are clauses that prevent them shifting HQ > to another jurisdiction/country. > -C > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart > > wrote: > > The law governing a contract is entirely separate from the > legal jurisdiction in which the parties to it are domiciled. > > On 11 Jun 2013 23:19, "Avri Doria" > wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Well said Nick. > > Anriette > > On 11/06/2013 10:07, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Reading the governance list, I'm struck by how little > discussion there > is on how to take the things that you presumably agree on > (objection to > overbroad surveillance, etc.) and do something productive > with it; it > seems almost all effort is spent trying to score points > against factions. > > > > Is this really the best that this list can do? > > > > Other lists - like Best Bits - are responding with > statements and the > like on topical subjects. Would you rather score points > against one > another, or score points for the public interest? > > - -- > - ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - > http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRtucJAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew2wcH/0i8NmZCtk8GlTxtLEeIJdN5 > zxZNuF3mi7r4orpoeE9ib/qXca0hVfEWArK3m+yA1vEoW9ntOjPAaePQfhhKIavA > fPf7kZIkGwr6dQJ/Q9vs2ZJdpb1i3sZSYMFDNBrEkodnhx9a0jRHgzHCvavRZnu/ > s1HQgqucJXvYLJzfsmhEL+Y7Gs9TzyjTrE7rbHCFiAy95jKt91uDe7VWd3IbZaBA > uU563jfUoVwquw5MOPzfkNRJEa/3ldpWDRhMEjrWNjUKyghJhsP1EytXWKe8I0Ex > JF7iuDQonvJ7yupeVUWOiHSXWIbL9vq8K6vEDkfXooJkOEWySgY0JWvrsr+hPBU= > =dPgW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Wed Jun 12 05:44:42 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:44:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <9CF1584C-CB28-4F2A-8506-077AA345A158@hserus.net> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <9CF1584C-CB28-4F2A-8506-077AA345A158@hserus.net> Message-ID: Maybe it's time google changed it's "don't be evil" mantra On 12/06/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Google routinely publishes requests for takedown / information from various > governments around the world, including a large number of requests from the > USG .. the only time they don't is when any government uses a process that > forbids such disclosure. > > In this case they are bound by law not to disclose these requests, so they > don't. And they have published a copy of the letter they sent requesting > permission - which they arent likely to get - to post these requests. > > So yes this is an exercise in PR - it also needs to be seen in perspective > with Google's larger pattern of full disclosure in such cases. > > --srs (iPad) > > On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:25, parminder wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced >> anything close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces >> today with PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, >> especially NGOS etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc >> etc.... So, this letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... >> >> I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before >> Edward Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them >> from writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they >> can certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went >> public despite google and the US gov is what would really count. >> >> 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 > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 05:58:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:28:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <9CF1584C-CB28-4F2A-8506-077AA345A158@hserus.net> Message-ID: You want them to be evil? But why? And how evil would you prefer that they be? --srs (iPad) On 12-Jun-2013, at 15:14, Kivuva wrote: > Maybe it's time google changed it's "don't be evil" mantra > > On 12/06/2013, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Google routinely publishes requests for takedown / information from various >> governments around the world, including a large number of requests from the >> USG .. the only time they don't is when any government uses a process that >> forbids such disclosure. >> >> In this case they are bound by law not to disclose these requests, so they >> don't. And they have published a copy of the letter they sent requesting >> permission - which they arent likely to get - to post these requests. >> >> So yes this is an exercise in PR - it also needs to be seen in perspective >> with Google's larger pattern of full disclosure in such cases. >> >> --srs (iPad) >> >> On 12-Jun-2013, at 14:25, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >>> >>> Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced >>> anything close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces >>> today with PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, >>> especially NGOS etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc >>> etc.... So, this letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... >>> >>> I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before >>> Edward Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them >>> from writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they >>> can certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went >>> public despite google and the US gov is what would really count. >>> >>> 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 > > > -- > ______________________ > Mwendwa Kivuva > twitter.com/lordmwesh > kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 06:32:22 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 06:32:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13d501ce6758$241d5c50$6c5814f0$@gmail.com> Note with congratulations the participation of Charles Mok who I believe, is the representative of the Technical Community in the Hong Kong Legislature (it`s complicated…) and a member of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRP)… M From: davidicus [mailto:bigbluearth at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:20 AM To: ciresearchers Cc: michael gurstein Subject: Fwd: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden Dear CI Colleagues--- An important point is being made in Hong Kong. It is great to see the alliance that has rapidly formed around this issue. See the posting just received below ~david ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Damon Wong Date: 2013/6/12 Subject: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden To: Inline image 1 ► 6月15日聲援斯諾登遊行 ► HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden ► http://www.supportsnowden.org/ 揭發美國國家安全局侵犯全球互聯網和電話用戶私隱的愛德華．斯諾登目前正藏身香港，因為他相信香港「很重視言論自由和表達政治異見的權利」。他犧牲了自己的安逸的生活和自由，去捍衞大家的網絡與言論自由，這場仗不應該由他一個人來背負。 Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the NSA internet and phone surveillance program has come to Hong Kong because, he says, we “have a spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent". Snowden sacrificed his personal safety and freedom to defend our right to free speech and Internet freedom. 請大家站出來，要求香港政府根據國際公約和慣例去處理和保護斯諾登；譴責美國侵犯我們的權利與私隱，要求美國政府不要壓害這位人權捍衞者。 We call on Hong Kong to respect international legal standards and procedures relating to the protection of Snowden; we condemn the U.S. government for violating our rights and privacy; and we call on the U.S. not to prosecute Snowden.” 我們亦要借這機會，告訴世界，香港市民會站出來，捍衞自由、人權和法治等普世價值。發出我們的聲音，向壓迫者說不！ Do you want to stand for freedom and the rule of law? Or should we totally disregard Hong Kong's legal system? This episode marks a crossroads in Hong Kong's future. Stand up for the future of Hong Kong.. 遊行時間：2013年6月15日下午3點至5點半。 Time: 3 - 5:30pm, Saturday June 15, 2013. 遊行路線：3點於遮打花園（中環站J2出口）起步遊行至美國領事館抗議，再遊行至添馬艦政府總部要求港府保護斯諾登。 Rally route: Starting 3pm at Chater Garden, Central MTR exit J2. Rally to the U.S Consulate and then Tamar SAR government building. 遊行準備：請呼朋引伴一齊來；由於當天可能下雨，請自備一些防水的海報和橫額。遊行的口號包括：「捍衞自由港 保護斯諾登」、「停止互聯網監控」、「NSA可恥」、「出賣斯諾登＝出賣自由」 Rally preparation: Please bring your friends, prepare for rain and try to bring water resistant posters. Slogan suggestions: "Defend Free Speech, Protect Snowden", "No Extradition", "Respect Hong Kong Law", "Shame on NSA", "Stop Internet Surveillance", "Betray Snowden = Betray Freedom". 已確認發言人包括：葉蔭聰，獨立媒體（香港）成員、毛孟靜，立法會議員、莫乃光，立法會議員、何俊仁，立法會議員、羅沃啟，香港人權監察總幹事. Confirmed speakers include: Ip lam Chong, Hong Kong In-Media; Claudia Mo, Member of the Legco; Charles Mok, Member of the Legco; Albert Ho, Member of the Legco, and Law Yuk Kai, Director, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. 遊行 tag #SnowdenHK Rally tag: #SnowdenHK 協辦團體（歡迎加入）： Rally co-organizers: ► inmediahk.net 香港獨立媒體網( http://www.inmediahk.net/) ► Hong Wrong ( http://hongwrong.com/) ► Civil Human Rights Front 民間人權陣線( http://www.civilhrfront.org/) ► Hong Kong Christian Institute 香港基督徒學會( http://www.hkci.org.hk/) ► Hong Kong First 香港本土( https://www.facebook.com/hongkongfirst) ► Midnight Blue 午夜藍 ( http://www.mnbhk.org/) ► Speak For Humanity ( http://speakforhumanity.com/) ► Land and Justice League 土地正義聯盟 ( http://landjusticehk.org/) ► 1908 Book Store 1908書社( https://www.facebook.com/1908book) ► Youth Union 青年聯社 ( http://youthunion.blogspot.hk/) ► Left 21 左翼廿一 ( http://left21.hk/wp/) ► Socialist Action 社會主義行動 ( http://www.socialism.hk/) ► NuTongXueShe 女同學社( http://leslovestudy.com/new/ntxs/) -- inmediahk: http://alturl.com/4yy39 house: http://alturl.com/pcpxa facebook: http://alturl.com/gqzmc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: XAyxq4J.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 113024 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From keith at internetnz.net.nz Wed Jun 12 07:17:00 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:17:00 +1200 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> Interesting question Kerry. I don't think the legal jurisdiction of ICANN moving would make any difference to the circumstances you outline. What is much more important is the actuality that the US Government is the administrator of the IANA database. So regardless of where you might choose the geographically locate ICANN, and regardless of which laws might govern ICANN etc, the fact remains that the US Government has the power and authority over the database that controls the Internets unique identifiers. Unless you could enthuse a large number of ccTLD managers, the RIRs and the Root Server operators to operate an alternate database, this issue remains at the heart, with the appearance of US Government unilateral control. Cheers Keith Davidson On 12/06/2013 4:12 a.m., Kerry Brown wrote: > The subject line will probably stir some controversy. Because of that I > will state my position clearly so people don’t misunderstand where I’m > coming from. I abhor the Patriot Act. I abhor governments secretly > collecting data with no oversight. I abhor how the Patriot Act has > affected my country which is Canada. Because of the Patriot Act I am > actively supporting the establishment of more IXPs in Canada to help > keep Canadian data in Canada. I actively lobby my government to be more > open and transparent. > > Now to the question I posed. Are we not conflating two issues that are > not related? Solving one won’t change the other. If ICANN moved to a > different jurisdiction tomorrow what would change re the American > government’s access to private data? Many of the services that Internet > users worldwide want to access are provided by American based companies > subject to American law. Much of the world’s Internet traffic is carried > on communications media owned by American companies subject to American > law. How would changing the jurisdiction that ICANN operates under > change the reality that if the American government wants to spy on > anybody they could do so with relative ease? > > I am all for investigating what it would take to move ICANN away from US > jurisdiction. There are many questions that need to be answered and > problems that would need to be solved but in the end I believe it would > be a good thing. I fail to see however that it would in any way hinder > the US governments’ ability to collect data from the Internet. These are > two distinct issues that will require different solutions. > > Kerry Brown > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 07:20:44 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 07:20:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Mozilla PR on privacy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <140601ce675e$e7586600$b6093200$@gmail.com> A very useful (IMHO) and responsible response from the Mozilla community who not only condemn the recently revealed surveillance activities but also suggest, based on their knowledge and experience strategies for more appropriately managing these matters from a technical perspective. M -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 5:42 PM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Mozilla PR on privacy [Note: This item comes from reader Randall Head. DLH] From: Randall Head Subject: Mozilla PR on privacy Date: June 11, 2013 2:38:14 PM PDT To: cyberia-l at googlegroups.com, Dave Farber , dewayne at warpspeed.com Persona and Surveillance By benadida Jun 11 2013 Over the last few days, news reports indicate that US government agencies are involved in broad surveillance of phone and Internet traffic. The exact extent of this surveillance is not fully understood. The Mozilla Identity Team joins the rest of Mozilla in calling for a thorough investigation of these surveillance activities. We also join security professionals like Bruce Schneier in highlighting the importance of transparency of surveillance activities: Knowing how the government spies on us is important. Not only because so much of it is illegal - or, to be as charitable as possible, based on novel interpretations of the law - but because we have a right to know. So, with that said, let's talk about Mozilla Persona in this context, and more broadly about Mozilla-provided user services. Mozilla stores some user data to provide these services. As per our privacy policy, we store only what we must to provide the features we build and validate with users and developers. Mozilla's Manifesto clearly shows how we focus on user sovereignty, whether we're discussing Firefox or Persona. Some have called on us to move Persona servers outside the US to escape the now-revealed surveillance activity. We don't think that would help, and even if it did a bit, we think we can be much more productive by focusing on other areas. First, it's not clear to us that other governments have any less intrusive surveillance activities. Second, as a US company, Mozilla is subject to US Laws, wherever we host our servers. Third, we'd rather not engage in an arms-race with US government agencies. We'd rather focus on efforts to change the Law to respect user data wherever it lives. It's also worth pointing out that we do take certain technical measures to limit the data we collect. We've designed Persona so that the identity provider - including the fallback Identity Provider that we run - does not learn your browsing history. We consider that a good security practice, not specifically because of surveillance, but generally because collecting data without a user benefit just creates risk. Mozilla will always do its utmost to serve and protect users, with a combination of technology and policy. We want to make sure the Law helps us do that. Help us by signing the petition. Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 07:46:26 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:16:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] The time for global rules on data usage has come Message-ID: <51B85F92.10405@itforchange.net> Newspaper editorials are saying, which sadly, the global civil society still remains shy to say ..... *The time for global rules on data usage has come*** The Independent (London). [Editorial]. 11/06/2013. Blanket monitoring of non-US internet activity will not stop terrorism For William Hague, the purpose of yesterday’s House of Commons statement was to allay fears that Britain’s security services piggyback on the privacy invasions of their less legally circumscribed US counterparts. Taking care to give little away, the Foreign Secretary described such suggestions as “baseless” and talked convincingly of a system replete with checks and balances. But even if our own spies are models of integrity, and our own laws paradigms of privacy-protection, the less stringent standards in the US are hardly less of a cause for concern. Yes, we live in a dangerous world. Just weeks after the Woolwich murder and the Boston bombing, it would be difficult to maintain otherwise. A degree of privacy is therefore compromised, in the interests of mutual security. But this is no binary choice, it is a balance to be struck; and the latest revelations from the US suggest that the scales have tipped too far. It is nonsense that the National Security Agency’s blanket monitoring of non-US citizens’ internet activity is necessary to combat terrorism. The majority of attacks are homegrown. Moreover, the fact that the same indiscriminate approach is not applied to US residents indicates Washington is well aware how badly such measures play with voters. But while NSA access to telephone records raised questions for the US, the Prism internet surveillance system raises questions for everyone else. It is also an incidence of gross overreach. At this stage, there is some dispute about Prism. The companies involved – Google, Facebook, Skype et al – deny that the NSA has access to their servers. But the broader issue remains pertinent regardless of the specifics. Europe and the US have been at loggerheads over data protection for more than a decade. In the past few months alone, EU proposals for new rules have provoked a storm of protest from US internet giants and warnings of a “trade war” from its diplomats. The latest insights only add fuel to the fire, even more so given that talks are set to start on a groundbreaking EU/US trade pact next month and American technology companies are lobbying for a watering down of the Commission proposals as part of the deal. Much as trade liberalisation is to be welcomed, Brussels must stick to its guns on matters of privacy. Data hoards that were troubling enough in the context of commercial activity are more unacceptable still when potentially accessible by the US government – or, indeed, any government. Nor is it enough to claim that the innocent have nothing to fear. The internet requires the fundamentals of privacy and ownership to be re-written. These new principles must be clarified in law, not allowed to drift, guided by considerations of national security alone. Such concerns are neither wrong, nor necessarily malevolent; but they are limited. Even if enough of an agreement can be reached to allow an EU/US deal to go ahead – by drawing a line around matters of national security, perhaps – the problem is unlikely to be solved. With US companies so dominant online, however, they cannot be fudged forever. Indeed, even as we are spooked by foreign ownership of British infrastructure, foreign ownership of vast swathes of personal data – the potential uses of which can barely be imagined – is going ahead largely unchecked. There is, then, a compelling case for global rules on data usage by which all internet companies would be bound. Such things take time, though. In the meantime, the US must take care not to ruin one of its most successful industries. Internet users may flock to Google and the rest now, but a non-American, NSA-free rival might find itself with a competitive advantage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 09:30:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:30:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:55 AM, parminder wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > > Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced anything > close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces today with > PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, especially NGOS > etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc etc.... So, this > letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... > > I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before Edward > Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them from > writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they can > certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went public > despite google and the US gov is what would really count. I just ran across this..apparently they asked for this months ago: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/google-nsa-national-security_n_3423064.html?utm_hp_ref=technology "In March, the company won the right publish statistics about the number of "national security letters" it receives. Those letters require Google to hand over "metadata" about users interactions -- who emailed whom, for example, but not the content of the emails themselves -- though even then the government would not let Google publish exact figures but only broad ranges of the number of requests." > > parminder > >> > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From rguerra at privaterra.org Wed Jun 12 09:38:51 2013 From: rguerra at privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:38:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA spying trashes U.S. global role Message-ID: <462595D4-A509-4588-9A5C-D4FED6F730BA@privaterra.org> Wanted to share with those on this list Ron Deibert's op/ed published today. It touches on many of the points recently raised on this list... -- http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/opinion/deibert-nsa-surveillance/ NSA spying trashes U.S. global role By Ronald Deibert , Special to CNN updated 8:32 AM EDT, Wed June 12, 2013 CNN.com Can Americans trust NSA's surveillance? Editor's note: Ronald Deibert is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, where he is director of the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs. He is author of "Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace" (Signal/McClelland & Stewart, 2013). (link to the book - http://blackcodebook.com ) (CNN) -- In 2011, I was on a panel, organized by the security company RSA, with two retired National Security Agency directors, Michael Hayden and Kenneth Minihan. During the course of our debate, I raised concerns, as the only non-American on the panel, that their plans and preferences for having the NSA secure cyberspace for the rest of us were not exactly reassuring. To this, Minihan replied that I should not describe myself as "Canadian" but rather "North American." As jarring as his response was, the fact of the matter is when it comes to communications, he's right. Practically speaking, there is no border separating Canadian from U.S. telecommunications -- though that's not true the other way around. Primarily, this one-way dependence is a product of history and economics. Canadians' communications are inextricably connected to networks south of the border and subject to the laws and practices of the U.S. over which we, as foreigners, have no say or control. For American citizens, the recent NSA scandal has touched off soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to protect American citizens' rights. Indeed, with respect to the case of PRISM, NSA's secret set of tools used to collect data about overseas Internet communications, some argue the program actually enhances those safeguards for Americans -- because it appears that collection of company data was segregated in such a way to limit the collection to "foreign citizens." As reassuring as this may be for Americans, for the rest of us non-Americans who enjoy our Gmail, Google Docs, and Facebook accounts, it's definitely unsettling: We're all fair game. While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not. For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global tier 1 telecommunications companies are American -- companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon. The social media services that many of us take for granted are also mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world's Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy. But there are unintended consequences of the NSA scandal that will undermine U.S. foreign policy interests -- in particular, the "Internet Freedom" agenda espoused by the U.S. State Department and its allies. The revelations that have emerged will undoubtedly trigger a reaction abroad as policymakers and ordinary users realize the huge disadvantages of their dependence on U.S.-controlled networks in social media, cloud computing, and telecommunications, and of the formidable resources that are deployed by U.S. national security agencies to mine and monitor those networks. For example, in 2012, Norwegian lawmakers debated a ban on the use by public officials of Google's and Microsoft's cloud computing services. Although shelved temporarily, this type of debate will almost certainly be resurrected and spread throughout Europe and other regions as the full scope of U.S.-based "foreign directed" wiretapping and metadata collection sinks in. Already we can see regional traffic to the United States from Asia, Africa and even Latin America gradually declining, a trend that is almost certainly going to accelerate as those regions ramp up regional network exchange points and local services to minimize dependence on networks under U.S. control. Many of the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are failed or fragile states; many of them are authoritarian or autocratic regimes. No doubt the elites in those regimes will use the excuse of security to adopt more stringent state controls over the Internet in their jurisdictions and support local versions of popular social media companies over which they can exact their own nationalized controls -- a trend that began prior to the NSA revelations but which now has additional rhetorical support. In the age of Big Data, the revelations about NSA's intelligence-gathering programs touched many nerves. The issue of surveillance won't go away, and Americans will need to figure out the appropriate safeguards for liberty in their democracy. It's an important debate, but one that doesn't include us "foreigners" that now make up the vast majority of the Internet users. Americans would do well to consider the international implications of their domestic policies before they come home to bite them. Ronald Deibert Director, the Citizen Lab and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies Munk School of Global Affairs University of Toronto (416) 946-8916 PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ twitter.com/citizenlab r.deibert at utoronto.ca -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 09:59:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:59:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51B81645.7060805@gmail.com> References: <51B81645.7060805@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:33 AM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: . Of course one could argue > like McTim that the US built it and the US owns it etc... but that is not > argument, it is a legitimate argument for a vested interest that can be > dealt with through reason - and from a democractic and global perspective > does not pass my muster. I'm offended by this post. to save you the time of asking why, I will repeat KB's reply to you on the same question. You assume you know my politics. You ascribe opinions to me that are not true. You assume you speak for billions of people. Worst of all you assume as an American citizen I automatically agree with US policy. I am more than willing to engage in constructive debate on the issues. Your post was not constructive. It was condescending. In fact, I will go further. You consistently misrepresent the opinions of others on this list. > by bilateral arrangements. It is a peculiar American liberal myth this view > of voluntrism, which frankly I find objectionable. For me what flows from > the approach/politics implicit in the framing of the question and flowing > from it is a less well articulated variation on Milton's and McTim's > internationalisation - despite the discussions, we have not had a response > to our equally legitimate objections to what I see essentially as a > pro-American or pro-Corporate (I have explained why) position implicit in > these definitions of internationalisation. right here, you've done it again. I'd like the same apology you gave to Kerry, retroactively to all posts in which you have mentioned my politics or opinions. I can't recall a single on in which you have been even close to the mark. You've had all the replies you need on this subject, yet you insist you haven't had any. Milton and I and many others feel that ICANN needs no governmental or intergovernmental oversight. This is not a pro-American or pro-corporate position. I feel it is a pro-Internet position. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 10:22:15 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 10:22:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:26 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me I think its mostly just you who has an unreasonable expectation here, based on a flawed understanding of the T&A Community. or is > there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either through > their "official" representative organization(s) Your use of quotes here seems to indicate that you understand there is no such official rep. There was a Focal Point appointed by the UN folks for the specific purpose of gathering names to include on a list. This does not mean they would ever represent the hundreds of orgs who do what we used to call Collaboration, Communication, Coordination (and there was a 4th C which I forget just now) of Internet resources/standards, etc. or even unofficially through > contributions from elders and notables? You might see this, (Lauren or Mozila for example, and W3C is joining the efforts to make a statement). That's how the Internet tech community works, people represent themselves (and sometimes our orgs) with no need for "representation". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jun 12 12:24:01 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:24:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy 12 June 2013 [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights. The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 On Jun 12, 2013, at 5:26 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > With the commercial sector weighing in in a useful way, is it just me or is there not deafening silence from the "technical community" either through their "official" representative organization(s) or even unofficially through contributions from elders and notables? > > Mike > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Riaz K Tayob > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:43 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings > > Nick > > While I have some issues, from the perspective of an industry association, this is a fabulous enlightened self-interest statement. This seems even better than what some civil society reps have put out - which is just remarkable. > > Thanks for sharing it as I suspect that non-US companies will be cashing in getting out of the US orbit of technology dependence, especially now that this it is so well known. It remains to be seen however how some companies handle their complicity in obeying the law but violating the constitution in 'sharing' access given the sophistry that that says there is access but not direct access. Also, Snowden is on record as saying that it is just not metadata of Americans that was collected, or capable of being collected. > > Riaz > > > On 2013/06/12 09:12 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear subscribers, > > As you know, I'm Geneva Representative of CCIA in my day job - this press release from us would, I thought, be of interest to many of you. > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: > June 11, 2013 > > CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings > Washington – Recent reports regarding NSA access to phone call metadata and online communications and data have highlighted the continued importance of government transparency. The Computer & Communications Industry Association commends the specific requests of both senators and companies today that would help. > CCIA shares the grave concerns expressed about the allegations in these disclosures. The Association supports recently proposed legislation to declassify the legal decisions providing the basis for government surveillance, and joins industry in calling for transparency in the frequency which the government seeks data from U.S. business. > Without knowledge about how the law is being interpreted and used, proper debate about practices is impossible. A group of Senators have realized this fact, and introduced a bill today that would require the Department of Justice to declassify a large number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions. CCIA supports this effort, led by Senators Merkley and Lee and joined by 6 other Senators. > CCIA has advocated against these sections of FISA for years and testified before the Senate in 2007 that we had concerns about accountability and transparency. > > The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black: > > “To make appropriate decisions about security in a free society, the public should be informed about the legal principles governing surveillance in America. Transparency is essential; secret law is antithetical to democracy.” > “A top concern to consider is whether a secret executive branch program using secret courts with oversight by lawmakers briefed secretly can provide the adequate checks and balances intended by our founders. What is missing is accountability and public scrutiny as part of the checks and balances. That can only come with more transparency about what our nation is doing so we can discuss as a nation whether it’s worth it. > “We join industry in calling on the US government to enable companies to report aggregate national security data requests it receives from the government. Google issued such a request today in a letter to the attorney general and FBI director and Facebook issued a similar request. In addition to important transparency goals, there are serious First Amendment issues with such gag orders. > “As the industry that provides Internet services and communications tools, we disagree with the notion that the scope of government surveillance or how frequently these tools are used should be classified. > “In this effort to gather security data, the broader picture of the damage to the Internet was lost. Somehow the Internet as a global tool, a trade tool and a trusted communication tool for people around the world was not adequately weighed into the cost benefit analysis. > “There are broad costs to our nation’s diplomatic, economic and trade goals if the millions of people around the world using Internet services to communicate are worried about how their information and data is being used by the US government.” > About CCIA: > CCIA is a 40 year-old international, nonprofit association of computer and communications and Internet industry firms, representing a broad cross section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, fair and open competition throughout our industry. Our members employ more than 600,000 workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $200 billion. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > To be removed from the list, visit: > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing > > For all other list information and functions, see: > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: > http://www.igcaucus.org/ > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:28:03 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:28:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Good statement! M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:15 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 12 June 2013] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens - including the right to privacy both offline and online - as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals' activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals' expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users' rights. The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global - the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 _______________________________________________ Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 12:37:47 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:37:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Good statement! > we finally agree....IGC should endorse this as well as the APC one! > **** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:15 PM > *To:* ip > *Subject:* [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the > Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy**** > > ** ** > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 12 June 2013] The Internet > Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. > government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from > U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We > are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential > correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and > relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The > impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has > implications for Internet users around the globe.**** > > **** > > While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and > there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the > Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized > within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, > such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations > and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect > the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both > offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights.**** > > **** > > The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing > these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a > leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution > A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to > individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including > privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights > should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such > as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary > and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. > Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted > these international standards.**** > > **** > > The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication > between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized > data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting > key building blocks of online trust, including the *OECD Guidelines on > the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data*, the > Council of Europe *Convention for the Protection of Individuals with > Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data*, the EU Data Protection > framework, and the *APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules > system.***** > > **** > > Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information > about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which > individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of > collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments > around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and > other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these > principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when > seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national > security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a > trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights.**** > > **** > > The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and > similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the > deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted > connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to > maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – > the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in > question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere.**** > > **** > > The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global > dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the > need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in > international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. > Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of > the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political > progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic > expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and > enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways > that enhance all of society.**** > > **** > > About the Internet Society**** > > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet > information and thought leadership from around the world. With its > principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet > Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future > development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. > Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet > Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for > everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org**** > > **** > > Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773**** > > _______________________________________________**** > > Archives > | ModifyYour Subscription | Unsubscribe > Now > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kerry at kdbsystems.com Wed Jun 12 12:44:15 2013 From: kerry at kdbsystems.com (Kerry Brown) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:44:15 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I fully support the ISOC statement and I support the IGC publicly supporting this statement as well. Kerry Brown http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy 12 June 2013 [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights. The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at ella.com Wed Jun 12 12:45:23 2013 From: avri at ella.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:45:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <10094CB6-2169-4F9C-92C2-7D2CBB4ACC48@ella.com> +1 avri On 12 Jun 2013, at 12:37, McTim wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Good statement! > > > we finally agree....IGC should endorse this as well as the APC one! > > > > > > > M > > > > From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:15 PM > To: ip > Subject: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy > > > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 12 June 2013] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. > > > > While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > > > > The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. > > > > The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. > > > > Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights. > > > > The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. > > > > The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. > > > > About the Internet Society > > The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visitwww.internetsociety.org > > > > Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 > > _______________________________________________ > > Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 12:45:41 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:45:41 -0700 Subject: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130612164541.GA2915@hserus.net> McTim [12/06/13 12:37 -0400]: >On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> Good statement! >> > >we finally agree....IGC should endorse this as well as the APC one! Well, do you still think that the technical community, whether "in quotes" or not, is silent and there's no statements from them? I am glad you find yourself in agreement with what, if any organization at all, can be called a representative of this extremely diverse community. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 12:45:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:45:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> <131b01ce6746$836a5a80$8a3f0f80$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130612164554.GB2915@hserus.net> +1 Kerry Brown [12/06/13 16:44 +0000]: >I fully support the ISOC statement and I support the IGC publicly supporting this statement as well. > >Kerry Brown > > >http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy > >Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy >12 June 2013 > >[Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. > >While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. > >The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. > >The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. > >Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights. > >The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. > >The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. > >About the Internet Society > >The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org > >Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 > >____________________________________________________________ >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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 12:52:48 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:22:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> McTIm, what you are talking about is entirely a different matter, and nothing to do with PRISM which pried on actual content of non US ians... My email is clear abut this, isnt it.... Google's letter is also clear that it is about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests. These requests all pertain to actual content of non US isans and that is not what you are talking about in your email).... Let Google show us any communication that made to the US gov regarding complying with these requests. Or you on their behalf. That would be relevant. Of course Google watches spaces like these. if they have any such letter that would do a lot to save their face.... So, if they do not come out with such a letter(s) within a day or two, it is safe to assume that they never asked th US gov to allow them at least some degree of transparency on PRISM compliance.... In fact still no one, including Google, has told us how FISA requests were received and complied with. At least at this stage someone needs to tell us that. Google and others have simply denied they knew anything of the name PRISM, but they must certainly know FISA. We can talk about that. Let them not tell the number of requests if they are prohibited from telling the numbers. But let us know at least what is that we the non US users of Google are exposed. How does it work... Hos is it possibe for non US ians to trust Google and other involved companies after this. On Wednesday 12 June 2013 07:00 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:55 AM, parminder wrote: >> On Tuesday 11 June 2013 11:29 PM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> Good to write this letter. And we understand, Google has not faced anything >> close to the trust deficit with non US customers that if faces today with >> PRISM related disclosures. I already see people around me, especially NGOS >> etc, that they would want to move out of gmail. google doc etc.... So, this >> letter to me is pure PR, and damage control... >> >> I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before Edward >> Snowden happened. US government can of course neither prohibit them from >> writing such requests, nor sharing them publicly -- in any case, they can >> certainly be shared now. Any such request made before the issue went public >> despite google and the US gov is what would really count. > > I just ran across this..apparently they asked for this months ago: > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/11/google-nsa-national-security_n_3423064.html?utm_hp_ref=technology > > "In March, the company won the right publish statistics about the > number of "national security letters" it receives. Those letters > require Google to hand over "metadata" about users interactions -- who > emailed whom, for example, but not the content of the emails > themselves -- though even then the government would not let Google > publish exact figures but only broad ranges of the number of > requests." > > > >> parminder >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nashton at ccianet.org Wed Jun 12 13:08:49 2013 From: nashton at ccianet.org (Nick Ashton-Hart) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 19:08:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings In-Reply-To: <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> References: <963EF8A3-8E31-4C1C-BBFD-D1BD6A266E2A@ccianet.org> <51B81860.3000908@gmail.com> Message-ID: <30C81408-69A2-416C-82BC-197DAFA01E4C@ccianet.org> Dear Riaz, Thanks - FWIW, CCIA has (I think, though I may well be biased) a pretty good record on privacy and surveillance; I know our CEO has testified to Congress on these subjects several times. Hopefully many more will add to the chorus. This is something which needs as many voices as possible so that things change in a meaningful way. On 12 Jun 2013, at 08:42, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Nick > > While I have some issues, from the perspective of an industry association, this is a fabulous enlightened self-interest statement. This seems even better than what some civil society reps have put out - which is just remarkable. > > Thanks for sharing it as I suspect that non-US companies will be cashing in getting out of the US orbit of technology dependence, especially now that this it is so well known. It remains to be seen however how some companies handle their complicity in obeying the law but violating the constitution in 'sharing' access given the sophistry that that says there is access but not direct access. Also, Snowden is on record as saying that it is just not metadata of Americans that was collected, or capable of being collected. > > Riaz > > > On 2013/06/12 09:12 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >> Dear subscribers, >> >> As you know, I'm Geneva Representative of CCIA in my day job - this press release from us would, I thought, be of interest to many of you. >> >>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >>> >>> June 11, 2013 >>> >>> >>> >>> CCIA Calls for Disclosure of Government Surveillance, Praises Bill To Declassify Some FISA Court Rulings >>> >>> Washington – Recent reports regarding NSA access to phone call metadata and online communications and data have highlighted the continued importance of government transparency. The Computer & Communications Industry Association commends the specific requests of both senators and companies today that would help. >>> CCIA shares the grave concerns expressed about the allegations in these disclosures. The Association supports recently proposed legislation to declassify the legal decisions providing the basis for government surveillance, and joins industry in calling for transparency in the frequency which the government seeks data from U.S. business. >>> >>> Without knowledge about how the law is being interpreted and used, proper debate about practices is impossible. A group of Senators have realized this fact, and introduced a bill today that would require the Department of Justice to declassify a large number of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinions. CCIA supports this effort, led by Senators Merkley and Lee and joined by 6 other Senators. >>> >>> CCIA has advocated against these sections of FISA for years and testified before the Senate in 2007 that we had concerns about accountability and transparency. >>> >>> The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black: >>> >>> “To make appropriate decisions about security in a free society, the public should be informed about the legal principles governing surveillance in America. Transparency is essential; secret law is antithetical to democracy.” >>> >>> “A top concern to consider is whether a secret executive branch program using secret courts with oversight by lawmakers briefed secretly can provide the adequate checks and balances intended by our founders. What is missing is accountability and public scrutiny as part of the checks and balances. That can only come with more transparency about what our nation is doing so we can discuss as a nation whether it’s worth it. >>> >>> “We join industry in calling on the US government to enable companies to report aggregate national security data requests it receives from the government. Google issued such a request today in a letter to the attorney general and FBI director and Facebook issued a similar request. In addition to important transparency goals, there are serious First Amendment issues with such gag orders. >>> >>> “As the industry that provides Internet services and communications tools, we disagree with the notion that the scope of government surveillance or how frequently these tools are used should be classified. >>> >>> “In this effort to gather security data, the broader picture of the damage to the Internet was lost. Somehow the Internet as a global tool, a trade tool and a trusted communication tool for people around the world was not adequately weighed into the cost benefit analysis. >>> >>> “There are broad costs to our nation’s diplomatic, economic and trade goals if the millions of people around the world using Internet services to communicate are worried about how their information and data is being used by the US government.” >>> >>> About CCIA: >>> >>> CCIA is a 40 year-old international, nonprofit association of computer and communications and Internet industry firms, representing a broad cross section of the industry. CCIA is dedicated to preserving full, fair and open competition throughout our industry. Our members employ more than 600,000 workers and generate annual revenues in excess of $200 billion. >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 495 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Wed Jun 12 13:12:33 2013 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:12:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] GNI Statement on Communications Surveillance Message-ID: Hi all - I thought this statement from GNI might also be of interest: --- http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/gni-statement-communications-surveillance GNI Statement on Communications Surveillance Recent statements by U.S. government officials about communications surveillance programs highlight the need for thoughtful public debate on the appropriate balance between freedom of expression and privacy on the one hand, and legitimate law enforcement and national security precautions, on the other. This is not just about the United States. Communications surveillance by any government raises questions about the clarity, necessity, and proportionality of measures taken and their impact on human rights, including privacy and freedom of expression. International human rights law and standards provide obligations and guidance as governments, companies, and civil society grapple with the impact of new technology on matters of security and privacy. Just last week, Frank La Rue, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, submitted a report to the UN Human Rights Council on the human rights implications of government surveillance in which he stated: “In order to meet their human rights obligations, States must ensure that rights to freedom of expression and privacy are at the heart of their communications surveillance frameworks.” International human rights law sets standards that protect the freedom of expression and privacy rights of users regardless of citizenship. The Global Network Initiative urges governments, in the United States and around the world, to strive for greater transparency about their laws, regulations and actions in this sphere. Increased transparency will help inform public debate. As governments continue to grapple with the impact of new surveillance technologies and capabilities, the GNI urges officials to include representatives of the public, private and civil society sectors in their policy deliberations. Free expression and privacy will only be protected if all viewpoints are heard. *GNI is a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics, who have created a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector. GNI provides resources for ICT companies to help them address difficult issues related to freedom of expression and privacy that they may face anywhere in the world. GNI has created a framework of principles and a confidential, collaborative approach to working through challenges of corporate responsibility in the ICT sector.** * -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 13:17:33 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:47:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM Message-ID: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> "Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop reporting your online activities to the American government with these free alternatives to proprietary software." http://prism-break.org/ Interesting!! -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 13:20:43 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:20:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, parminder wrote: > > McTIm, what you are talking about is entirely a different matter, and > nothing to do with PRISM which pried on actual content of non US ians well to be precise, the NSA has been doing this for decades. PRISM being a supposedly 20M USD program can do nothing of that sort. ... My > email is clear abut this, isnt it yes you said: "I would like to see if they made any similar request to US gov before Edward Snowden happened" I showed you an article that described how this happened in March. ... Google's letter is also clear that it > is about Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests. These > requests all pertain to actual content of non US isans and that is not what > you are talking about in your email) again, to be precise, I sent two links and quoted from one...none of the words in my previous email on this thread were mine. .... Let Google show us any > communication that made to the US gov regarding complying with these I doubt they would publish these, as it may not be legal to do so, but you have to ask them directly. > requests. Or you on their behalf. That would be relevant. Of course Google > watches spaces like these. if they have any such letter that would do a lot > to save their face.... So, if they do not come out with such a letter(s) > within a day or two, it is safe to assume that they never asked th US gov to > allow them at least some degree of transparency on PRISM compliance no, it is not safe to assume that at all. .... In > fact still no one, including Google, has told us how FISA requests were > received and complied with. here: http://techcrunch.com/2013/06/08/cooperation-methods-protected-innocents-from-prism/ At least at this stage someone needs to tell us > that. You may want to know, but that doesn't mean "someone needs to tell us". Google and others have simply denied they knew anything of the name > PRISM, but they must certainly know FISA. see link above. We can talk about that. Let them > not tell the number of requests if they are prohibited from telling the > numbers. But let us know at least what is that we the non US users of Google > are exposed. How does it work... Hos is it possibe for non US ians to trust > Google and other involved companies after this. see link above. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 13:23:04 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:23:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] OSF - New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know Message-ID: PRESS RELEASES http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/press-releases/new-principles-address-balance-between-national-security-and-publics-right-know New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know June 12, 2013 Open Society Justice Initiative New Principles Address the Balance between National Security and the Public's Right to Know - - - The question of how to ensure public access to government information without jeopardizing legitimate efforts to protect people from national security threats is the focus of a new set of global principles being unveiled today. The new Tshwane Principles on National Security and the Right to Information are the result of over two years of consultation around the world, facilitated by the Open Society Justice Initiative and involving governments, former security officials, civil society groups, and academics. The Principles address in unprecedented detail the balance between secrecy and the public’s right to know, in a world that has been transformed by global efforts to combat terrorism and the parallel rise of new digital technologies, as well as the rapid growth of right to information laws. In addition to addressing what government-held information may legitimately be kept secret and what information should be disclosed, they outline standards for the treatment of whistleblowers who act in the public interest, as well as issues related to classification and declassification, and other questions. *Frank La Rue*, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, welcomed the launch of the Tshwane Principles, saying: “The Principles are a major contribution to the right of access to information and the right to truth concerning human rights violations, and I believe they should be adopted by the Human Rights Council. All states should reflect these Principles in their interpretations of national security law.” The Principles are based on a survey of international and national law, standards, good practices, and the writings of experts. They were developed by 22 academic and civil society groups (listed below), who consulted over 500 experts from more than 70 countries, culminating in a meeting in Tshwane, South Africa, which gave the Principles their name. The process also involved working closely with the four special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and the media from the UN, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Organization of American States (OAS), and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), as well as with the UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights. *Lord Alex Carlile, Q.C., *the United Kingdom’s first Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation (2001-11), and one of the experts involved in the consultations, said: “In my opinion the Principles provide an excellent international template. I hope that governments around the world will examine the Principles and adopt them, as a standard that is both aspirational and achievable.” The Principles, in draft form, have already played a role in supporting civil society arguments to modify some of the most troubling sections of South Africa’s Protection of State Information Law, recently adopted by South Africa’s parliament but not yet signed by the president. *Highlights of the Tshwane Principles include:* - Information should be kept secret only if its disclosure poses “a real and identifiable risk of significant harm to a legitimate national security interest” (Principle 3) - Information concerning serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law must always be disclosed (Principle 10A) - The public should have access to information on surveillance programs (Principle 10E) - No government entity should be categorically exempt from disclosure requirements (Principle 5) - Public officials who act in the public interest to expose government abuses should be protected from retaliation (Principle 40) *Further Statements of Support* *Ben Emmerson*, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights: “The Tshwane Principles reflect global best practice in setting safeguards for balancing the protection of public interest disclosures and the disclosure of gross or systematic human rights violations against the need to maintain the secrecy of classified information. I have no doubt that they will come to be regarded as a significant step in promoting international consistency on these sensitive and difficult questions.” *Catalina Botero*, OAS Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information: “My office welcomes the Tshwane Principles as the appropriate balance to ensure state capacity to protect security and the protection of individual freedoms. We must not lose sight of the fact that security, in a democratic society, is not an end in itself. Its only purpose is to protect the capacity of institutions to guarantee all people the free exercise of their rights, without discrimination. History has shown time and again that efforts to increase security through the suppression of liberty have threatened both liberty and security.” *Pansy Tlakula*, Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information in Africa: “These Global Principles could not have come at a more opportune time, given the recent adoption of a model law on access to information for Africa by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. These principles complement the provisions of the model law and also seek to strike the requisite balance between the public’s right to know and the protection of legitimate national security interests, given the current global context of rising insecurity. For my home country, South Africa, it would certainly come in quite handy, as we struggle to resolve all the thorny issues implicated in the recently adopted Protection of State Information Bill.” *Dunja Mijatovic*, the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media: “There is no security without free media and free expression and no free expression and free media without security. These two terms should come hand in hand and not fight each other like we see in so many parts of the world.” *Colonel Birame Diop*, director of Partners Senegal, a non-governmental group promoting peaceful development, and formerly a senior officer in the Senegalese Air Force with 30 years experience: "For years, most African militaries maintained a 'cat and mouse' relationship with the media, as well as the broader public. Today, fortunately, in many placed throughout the continent, the relationship between the military and the media is more respectful and trustful. The parties have realized that for their respective missions to be successful, and for democratic oversight of the security services, the military and the media need to engage openly. Based on my 30 years of military experience, I believe that the Tshwame Principles will help to strengthen this nascent dynamic that is slowly but surely improving the continent's security as well as its respect for the right to information." *Morton Halperin*, senior advisor to the Open Society Foundations, who served in the U.S. government under the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton administrations: “As societies deal with the continuing conflict between the right to know and claims of national security as well as how to evaluate acts of whistleblowers, these principles will provide a compelling guide grounded in experience and a deep commitment to the values of open society.” *The following groups were involved in drafting the principles:* - Africa Freedom of Information Centre, Kampala - African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum (APCOF), Cape Town - Alianza Regional por la Libre Expresión e Información (Americas) - Amnesty International, London - Article 19, the Global Campaign for Free Expression, London - Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum Asia), Bangkok - Center for National Security Studies, Washington DC - Central European University, Budapest - Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS), Wits University, Johannesburg - Centre for European Constitutionalization and Security (CECS), University of Copenhagen - Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria - Centre for Law and Democracy, Halifax - Centre for Peace and Development Initiatives (CDPI), Islamabad - Centre for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information (CELE), Palermo University School of Law, Buenos Aires - Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi - Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Cairo - Institute for Defence, Security and Peace Studies, Jakarta - Institute for Security Studies, Pretoria - International Commission of Jurists, Geneva - National Security Archive, Washington DC - Open Democracy Advice Centre, Cape Town - Open Society Justice Initiative, New York Learn More:Freedom of Information , Governance & Accountability in the United States , National Security & Counterterrorism , Rule of Law , Governance & Accountability , Media & Information , Rights & Justice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 12 13:34:34 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:04:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA spying trashes U.S. global role In-Reply-To: <462595D4-A509-4588-9A5C-D4FED6F730BA@privaterra.org> References: <462595D4-A509-4588-9A5C-D4FED6F730BA@privaterra.org> Message-ID: <51B8B12A.1090104@itforchange.net> If a Canadian, whom the NSA guys loving want to hug as a fellow North American, feels like this, how would we from the South, among top listed PRISM targets feel.... If we have to have an IGC statement it must look less like professional industry association statements and more like a global civil society statement, expressing the horror that people are right now feeling all over the world- much more so in the South... Otherwise maybe IGC can just declare its incapacity to rise to such occasions, as significant as the present one. parminder On Wednesday 12 June 2013 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > Wanted to share with those on this list Ron Deibert's op/ed published today. It touches on many of the points recently raised on this list... > > -- > > > http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/opinion/deibert-nsa-surveillance/ > > NSA spying trashes U.S. global role > > By Ronald Deibert , Special to CNN > updated 8:32 AM EDT, Wed June 12, 2013 CNN.com > > Can Americans trust NSA's surveillance? > > Editor's note: Ronald Deibert is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, where he is director of the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs. He is author of "Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace" (Signal/McClelland & Stewart, 2013). (link to the book - http://blackcodebook.com ) > > (CNN) -- In 2011, I was on a panel, organized by the security company RSA, with two retired National Security Agency directors, Michael Hayden and Kenneth Minihan. During the course of our debate, I raised concerns, as the only non-American on the panel, that their plans and preferences for having the NSA secure cyberspace for the rest of us were not exactly reassuring. To this, Minihan replied that I should not describe myself as "Canadian" but rather "North American." > > As jarring as his response was, the fact of the matter is when it comes to communications, he's right. Practically speaking, there is no border separating Canadian from U.S. telecommunications -- though that's not true the other way around. Primarily, this one-way dependence is a product of history and economics. Canadians' communications are inextricably connected to networks south of the border and subject to the laws and practices of the U.S. over which we, as foreigners, have no say or control. > > For American citizens, the recent NSA scandal has touched off soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to protect American citizens' rights. > > Indeed, with respect to the case of PRISM, NSA's secret set of tools used to collect data about overseas Internet communications, some argue the program actually enhances those safeguards for Americans -- because it appears that collection of company data was segregated in such a way to limit the collection to "foreign citizens." As reassuring as this may be for Americans, for the rest of us non-Americans who enjoy our Gmail, Google Docs, and Facebook accounts, it's definitely unsettling: We're all fair game. > > While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not. > > For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global tier 1 telecommunications companies are American -- companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon. > > The social media services that many of us take for granted are also mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world's Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy. > > But there are unintended consequences of the NSA scandal that will undermine U.S. foreign policy > interests -- in particular, the "Internet Freedom" agenda espoused by the U.S. State Department and its allies. > > The revelations that have emerged will undoubtedly trigger a reaction abroad as policymakers and ordinary users realize the huge disadvantages of their dependence on U.S.-controlled networks in social media, cloud computing, and telecommunications, and of the formidable resources that are deployed by U.S. national security agencies to mine and monitor those networks. > > For example, in 2012, Norwegian lawmakers debated a ban on the use by public officials of Google's and Microsoft's cloud computing services. Although shelved temporarily, this type of debate will almost certainly be resurrected and spread throughout Europe and other regions as the full scope of U.S.-based "foreign directed" wiretapping and metadata collection sinks in. > > Already we can see regional traffic to the United States from Asia, Africa and even Latin America gradually declining, a trend that is almost certainly going to accelerate as those regions ramp up regional network exchange points and local services to minimize dependence on networks under U.S. control. > > Many of the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are failed or fragile states; many of them are authoritarian or autocratic regimes. No doubt the elites in those regimes will use the excuse of security to adopt more stringent state controls over the Internet in their jurisdictions and support local versions of popular social media companies over which they can exact their own nationalized controls -- a trend that began prior to the NSA revelations but which now has additional rhetorical support. > > In the age of Big Data, the revelations about NSA's intelligence-gathering programs touched many nerves. The issue of surveillance won't go away, and Americans will need to figure out the appropriate safeguards for liberty in their democracy. It's an important debate, but one that doesn't include us "foreigners" that now make up the vast majority of the Internet users. Americans would do well to consider the international implications of their domestic policies before they come home to bite them. > > > Ronald Deibert > Director, the Citizen Lab > and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies > Munk School of Global Affairs > University of Toronto > (416) 946-8916 > PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt > http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ > twitter.com/citizenlab > r.deibert at utoronto.ca > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 13:41:01 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:41:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] NSA spying trashes U.S. global role In-Reply-To: <51B8B12A.1090104@itforchange.net> References: <462595D4-A509-4588-9A5C-D4FED6F730BA@privaterra.org> <51B8B12A.1090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: parminder do you want to take a look in the letter and make suggestions there that can portrait that? http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here C On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:34 PM, parminder wrote: > > If a Canadian, whom the NSA guys loving want to hug as a fellow North > American, feels like this, how would we from the South, among top listed > PRISM targets feel.... If we have to have an IGC statement it must look > less like professional industry association statements and more like a > global civil society statement, expressing the horror that people are right > now feeling all over the world- much more so in the South... Otherwise > maybe IGC can just declare its incapacity to rise to such occasions, as > significant as the present one. > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Wanted to share with those on this list Ron Deibert's op/ed published today. It touches on many of the points recently raised on this list... > > -- > > http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/opinion/deibert-nsa-surveillance/ > > NSA spying trashes U.S. global role > > By Ronald Deibert , Special to CNN > updated 8:32 AM EDT, Wed June 12, 2013 CNN.com > > Can Americans trust NSA's surveillance? > > Editor's note: Ronald Deibert is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto, where he is director of the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs. He is author of "Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace" (Signal/McClelland & Stewart, 2013). (link to the book - http://blackcodebook.com ) > > (CNN) -- In 2011, I was on a panel, organized by the security company RSA, with two retired National Security Agency directors, Michael Hayden and Kenneth Minihan. During the course of our debate, I raised concerns, as the only non-American on the panel, that their plans and preferences for having the NSA secure cyberspace for the rest of us were not exactly reassuring. To this, Minihan replied that I should not describe myself as "Canadian" but rather "North American." > > As jarring as his response was, the fact of the matter is when it comes to communications, he's right. Practically speaking, there is no border separating Canadian from U.S. telecommunications -- though that's not true the other way around. Primarily, this one-way dependence is a product of history and economics. Canadians' communications are inextricably connected to networks south of the border and subject to the laws and practices of the U.S. over which we, as foreigners, have no say or control. > > For American citizens, the recent NSA scandal has touched off soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to protect American citizens' rights. > > Indeed, with respect to the case of PRISM, NSA's secret set of tools used to collect data about overseas Internet communications, some argue the program actually enhances those safeguards for Americans -- because it appears that collection of company data was segregated in such a way to limit the collection to "foreign citizens." As reassuring as this may be for Americans, for the rest of us non-Americans who enjoy our Gmail, Google Docs, and Facebook accounts, it's definitely unsettling: We're all fair game. > > While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not. > > For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global tier 1 telecommunications companies are American -- companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon. > > The social media services that many of us take for granted are also mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world's Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy. > > But there are unintended consequences of the NSA scandal that will undermine U.S. foreign policy > interests -- in particular, the "Internet Freedom" agenda espoused by the U.S. State Department and its allies. > > The revelations that have emerged will undoubtedly trigger a reaction abroad as policymakers and ordinary users realize the huge disadvantages of their dependence on U.S.-controlled networks in social media, cloud computing, and telecommunications, and of the formidable resources that are deployed by U.S. national security agencies to mine and monitor those networks. > > For example, in 2012, Norwegian lawmakers debated a ban on the use by public officials of Google's and Microsoft's cloud computing services. Although shelved temporarily, this type of debate will almost certainly be resurrected and spread throughout Europe and other regions as the full scope of U.S.-based "foreign directed" wiretapping and metadata collection sinks in. > > Already we can see regional traffic to the United States from Asia, Africa and even Latin America gradually declining, a trend that is almost certainly going to accelerate as those regions ramp up regional network exchange points and local services to minimize dependence on networks under U.S. control. > > Many of the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are failed or fragile states; many of them are authoritarian or autocratic regimes. No doubt the elites in those regimes will use the excuse of security to adopt more stringent state controls over the Internet in their jurisdictions and support local versions of popular social media companies over which they can exact their own nationalized controls -- a trend that began prior to the NSA revelations but which now has additional rhetorical support. > > In the age of Big Data, the revelations about NSA's intelligence-gathering programs touched many nerves. The issue of surveillance won't go away, and Americans will need to figure out the appropriate safeguards for liberty in their democracy. It's an important debate, but one that doesn't include us "foreigners" that now make up the vast majority of the Internet users. Americans would do well to consider the international implications of their domestic policies before they come home to bite them. > > > Ronald Deibert > Director, the Citizen Lab > and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies > Munk School of Global Affairs > University of Toronto(416) 946-8916 > PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txthttp://deibert.citizenlab.org/twitter.com/citizenlabr.deibert at utoronto.ca > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 12 13:45:27 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:15:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] NSA spying trashes U.S. global role In-Reply-To: <51B8B12A.1090104@itforchange.net> References: <462595D4-A509-4588-9A5C-D4FED6F730BA@privaterra.org> <51B8B12A.1090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13f397def17.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Please speak specifically for yourself rather than for the 'south' --srs (htc one x) On 12 June 2013 11:04:34 PM parminder wrote: > > If a Canadian, whom the NSA guys loving want to hug as a fellow North > American, feels like this, how would we from the South, among top listed > PRISM targets feel.... If we have to have an IGC statement it must look > less like professional industry association statements and more like a > global civil society statement, expressing the horror that people are right > now feeling all over the world- much more so in the South... Otherwise > maybe IGC can just declare its incapacity to rise to such occasions, as > significant as the present one. > > parminder > > > On Wednesday 12 June 2013 07:08 PM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Wanted to share with those on this list Ron Deibert's op/ed published > today. It touches on many of the points recently raised on this list... > > > > -- > > > > > > http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/opinion/deibert-nsa-surveillance/ > > > > NSA spying trashes U.S. global role > > > > By Ronald Deibert , Special to CNN > > updated 8:32 AM EDT, Wed June 12, 2013 CNN.com > > > > Can Americans trust NSA's surveillance? > > > > Editor's note: Ronald Deibert is a professor of political science at the > University of Toronto, where he is director of the Canada Centre for Global > Security Studies and the Citizen Lab at the Munk School of Global Affairs. > He is author of "Black Code: Inside the Battle for Cyberspace" > (Signal/McClelland & Stewart, 2013). (link to the book - > http://blackcodebook.com ) > > > > (CNN) -- In 2011, I was on a panel, organized by the security company > RSA, with two retired National Security Agency directors, Michael Hayden > and Kenneth Minihan. During the course of our debate, I raised concerns, as > the only non-American on the panel, that their plans and preferences for > having the NSA secure cyberspace for the rest of us were not exactly > reassuring. To this, Minihan replied that I should not describe myself as > "Canadian" but rather "North American." > > > > As jarring as his response was, the fact of the matter is when it comes > to communications, he's right. Practically speaking, there is no border > separating Canadian from U.S. telecommunications -- though that's not true > the other way around. Primarily, this one-way dependence is a product of > history and economics. Canadians' communications are inextricably connected > to networks south of the border and subject to the laws and practices of > the U.S. over which we, as foreigners, have no say or control. > > > > For American citizens, the recent NSA scandal has touched off > soul-searching discussions about the legality of mass surveillance > programs, whether they violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. > Constitution, and whether proper oversight and accountability exist to > protect American citizens' rights. > > > > Indeed, with respect to the case of PRISM, NSA's secret set of tools used > to collect data about overseas Internet communications, some argue the > program actually enhances those safeguards for Americans -- because it > appears that collection of company data was segregated in such a way to > limit the collection to "foreign citizens." As reassuring as this may be > for Americans, for the rest of us non-Americans who enjoy our Gmail, Google > Docs, and Facebook accounts, it's definitely unsettling: We're all fair game. > > > > While cyberspace may be global, its infrastructure most definitely is not. > > > > For example, a huge proportion of global Internet traffic flows through > networks controlled by the United States, simply because eight of 15 global > tier 1 telecommunications companies are American -- companies like AT&T, > CenturyLink, XO Communications and, significantly, Verizon. > > > > The social media services that many of us take for granted are also > mostly provided by giants headquartered in the United States, like Google, > Facebook, Yahoo! and Twitter. All of these companies are subject to U.S. > law, including the provisions of the U.S. Patriot Act, no matter where > their services are offered or their servers located. Having the world's > Internet traffic routed through the U.S. and having those companies under > its jurisdiction give U.S. national security agencies an enormous > home-field advantage that few other countries enjoy. > > > > But there are unintended consequences of the NSA scandal that will > undermine U.S. foreign policy > > interests -- in particular, the "Internet Freedom" agenda espoused by the > U.S. State Department and its allies. > > > > The revelations that have emerged will undoubtedly trigger a reaction > abroad as policymakers and ordinary users realize the huge disadvantages of > their dependence on U.S.-controlled networks in social media, cloud > computing, and telecommunications, and of the formidable resources that are > deployed by U.S. national security agencies to mine and monitor those networks. > > > > For example, in 2012, Norwegian lawmakers debated a ban on the use by > public officials of Google's and Microsoft's cloud computing services. > Although shelved temporarily, this type of debate will almost certainly be > resurrected and spread throughout Europe and other regions as the full > scope of U.S.-based "foreign directed" wiretapping and metadata collection > sinks in. > > > > Already we can see regional traffic to the United States from Asia, > Africa and even Latin America gradually declining, a trend that is almost > certainly going to accelerate as those regions ramp up regional network > exchange points and local services to minimize dependence on networks under > U.S. control. > > > > Many of the countries in the Southern Hemisphere are failed or fragile > states; many of them are authoritarian or autocratic regimes. No doubt the > elites in those regimes will use the excuse of security to adopt more > stringent state controls over the Internet in their jurisdictions and > support local versions of popular social media companies over which they > can exact their own nationalized controls -- a trend that began prior to > the NSA revelations but which now has additional rhetorical support. > > > > In the age of Big Data, the revelations about NSA's > intelligence-gathering programs touched many nerves. The issue of > surveillance won't go away, and Americans will need to figure out the > appropriate safeguards for liberty in their democracy. It's an important > debate, but one that doesn't include us "foreigners" that now make up the > vast majority of the Internet users. Americans would do well to consider > the international implications of their domestic policies before they come > home to bite them. > > > > > > Ronald Deibert > > Director, the Citizen Lab > > and the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies > > Munk School of Global Affairs > > University of Toronto > > (416) 946-8916 > > PGP: http://deibert.citizenlab.org/pubkey.txt > > http://deibert.citizenlab.org/ > > twitter.com/citizenlab > > r.deibert at utoronto.ca > > > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 15:05:52 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:05:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google, Facebook and others are being way too timid on NSA's business-killing PRISM program Message-ID: <181001ce679f$e4ef44b0$aecdce10$@gmail.com> A piece in a Silicon Valley biz newsletter on the biz fallout from PRISM... worth a read... M http://www.siliconbeat.com/2013/06/12/google-facebook-and-others-are-being-w ay-too-timid-on-nsas-business-killing-prism-program/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu Wed Jun 12 15:17:20 2013 From: peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu (Peter H. Hellmonds) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 21:17:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy References: <39f5873cd95c4b7a96c37898367a3648@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <962351362.721470.1371064641893.open-xchange@oxbagw15> Here's ISOC's official statement on the NSA / PRISM issue. Peter Begin forwarded message: From: Wende Cover Date: 12. Juni 2013 18:28:46 MESZ To: "isoc-members-announce at elists.isoc.org" Subject: [ISOC] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens – including the right to privacy both offline and online – as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals’ activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals’ expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users’ rights. The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global – the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 15:50:31 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:50:31 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <183e01ce67a6$1eebb940$5cc32bc0$@gmail.com> +1 but with a few caveats. The statement IMHO is good as far as it goes--it is quite critical of the US governments policies and programs (PRISM); it is appropriately international, recognizing the significance of these policies and programs including (and particularly for non-US citizens); and it anchors its criticism/comments in the language and documentation of universal principles and commitments concerning human rights. Further it recognizes how dangerous are these policies and programs to the continued health and well-being of the global Internet which ultimately is based on relationships of trust between a wide variety of independent actors dispersed globally. However, what the statement does not do which is the rather more difficult but necessary next step is to suggest what needs to be done from a technical perspective or perhaps better how can the technical and policy infrastructure of the Internet be designed/engineered so as to ensure that the challenge to the human rights of citizens globally that PRISM and associated technical innovations and practices represent is subject to an appropriate degree of transparency and accountability to a global public to ensure that the Total Surveillance Society is not brought to pass. Perhaps it is unrealistic to expect ISOC to bring forward such recommendations with such haste. However, one could expect that ISOC should indicate how it will collaborate with others including civil society, the private sector and governments in the analysis of the limitations in the existing system which allow for what the statement terms "the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data"; what measures can and should be taken to curb such practices; and what mechanisms technical and governance need to be put in place to ensure that such measures and related developments are not allowed to happen in the future. The shared goal would appear to be that the Internet be allowed to grow and develop as the statement says as a "secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals" and that those "trusted interactions in cyberspace (which) are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community" are allowed to grow and flourish for the future. The challenge facing the technical community as much or even more than others is to work out how within the limits of their knowledge and experience and the knowledge and experience of others in partnership globally, this may be realized. Mike From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:38 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:28 PM, michael gurstein wrote: Good statement! we finally agree....IGC should endorse this as well as the APC one! M From: David Farber [mailto:farber at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:15 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 12 June 2013] The Internet Society has noted recent revelations regarding the apparent scope of U.S. government efforts to gather large amounts of end user information from U.S. Internet and telecom service providers for intelligence purposes. We are deeply concerned that the unwarranted collection, storage and potential correlation of user data will undermine many of the key principles and relationships of trust upon which the global Internet has been built. The impact of this action is not limited to U.S. users or companies, but has implications for Internet users around the globe. While government plays an important role in protecting its citizens and there is a need for better approaches to address online security, the Internet Society strongly believes that real security can only be realized within a broader context of trust and the respect of fundamental rights, such as privacy. The Internet Society, along with many other organizations and individuals around the world, expect governments to respect and protect the basic rights of their citizens - including the right to privacy both offline and online - as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The U.S. Government has previously taken an active role in championing these rights in the international sphere. For example, the U.S. played a leadership role in the adoption of the Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/RES/20/8, which re-affirmed that fundamental rights are applicable to individuals' activities in the online environment as well, including privacy and freedom of expression. This means that restrictions of rights should be exceptional and conform to internationally accepted criteria such as: provision by law; pursuing a legitimate purpose; proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim. Users naturally have higher expectations of governments who have adopted these international standards. The Internet must be a channel for secure, reliable, private communication between entities and individuals. Consensus for internationally recognized data protection standards has been formed through agreements constituting key building blocks of online trust, including the OECD Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data, the EU Data Protection framework, and the APEC Privacy Framework and Cross Border Privacy Rules system. Emerging revelations about alleged U.S. programs to gather information about Internet users raise clear questions about the extent to which individuals' expectations of privacy have been compromised. This kind of collection of user information is at odds with the commitments governments around the world have made with respect to protection of personal data and other human rights. We would expect any government signing onto these principles to fully engage with its citizens in an open dialogue when seeking to achieve both the protection of individual rights and national security. We also need to challenge the view that there always has to be a trade-off between ensuring security and protecting users' rights. The Internet Society is also deeply concerned that alleged programs and similar efforts by other governments will have a chilling effect on the deployment and adoption of technical solutions for establishing trusted connections online. This kind of trust-enabled infrastructure is needed to maintain global interoperability and openness. The Internet is global - the impact of programs like these is not limited to the specific country in question but rather reverberates across the globe to users everywhere. The revelations of recent days underscore the importance of an open global dialogue regarding online privacy in the realm of national security and the need for all stakeholders to abide by the norms and principles outlined in international agreements on data protection and other fundamental rights. Trusted interactions in cyberspace are critical not only for the future of the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political progress and a vibrant global community. Users need clear and realistic expectations of online privacy that are respected by governments and enterprises alike, so that they can continue to use the Internet in ways that enhance all of society. About the Internet Society The Internet Society is the trusted independent source for Internet information and thought leadership from around the world. With its principled vision and substantial technological foundation, the Internet Society promotes open dialogue on Internet policy, technology, and future development among users, companies, governments, and other organizations. Working with its members and Chapters around the world, the Internet Society enables the continued evolution and growth of the Internet for everyone. For more information, visit www.internetsociety.org Media Contact: Wende Cover, cover at isoc.org, +1-703-439-2773 _______________________________________________ Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:29:23 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:29:23 -0400 Subject: FW: [governance] RE: [IP] NEWS RELEASE: Internet Society Statement on the Importance of Open Global Dialogue Regarding Online Privacy In-Reply-To: <183e01ce67a6$1eebb940$5cc32bc0$@gmail.com> References: <9c8cfa5463cf45f6a91ba3ba3a2a1fe8@CO1PR06MB175.namprd06.prod.outlook.com> <5443FEF7-B658-4007-959C-F3140E23779A@gmail.com> <16af01ce6789$d61676e0$824364a0$@gmail.com> <183e01ce67a6$1eebb940$5cc32bc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > +1 but with a few caveats…**** > > ** > > However, what the statement does not do which is the rather more difficult > but necessary next step is to suggest what needs to be done from a > technical perspective or perhaps better how can the technical and policy > infrastructure of the Internet be designed/engineered so as to ensure that > the challenge to the human rights of citizens globally that PRISM and > associated technical innovations and practices represent is subject to an > appropriate degree of transparency and accountability to a global public to > ensure that the Total Surveillance Society is not brought to pass. **** > > ** ** > > Perhaps > Perhaps is an understatement. Unrealistic would be a better word. > it is unrealistic to expect ISOC to bring forward such recommendations > with such haste. However, one could expect that ISOC should indicate how > it will collaborate with others including civil society, the private sector > and governments in the analysis of the limitations in the existing system > which allow for what the statement terms "the unwarranted collection, > storage and potential correlation of user data"; what measures can and > should be taken to curb such practices; and what mechanisms technical and > governance need to be put in place to ensure that such measures and related > developments are not allowed to happen in the future. **** > > ** ** > > The shared goal would appear to be that the Internet be allowed to grow > and develop as the statement says as a "secure, reliable, private > communication between entities and individuals" and that those "trusted > interactions in cyberspace (which) are critical not only for the future of > the Internet, but also for continued innovation, economic and political > progress and a vibrant global community" are allowed to grow and flourish > for the future. **** > > ** ** > > The challenge facing the technical community as much or even more than > others is to work out how within the limits of their knowledge and > experience and the knowledge and experience of others in partnership > globally, this may be realized. > I doubt the T&A will take this up, it's more for app developers and the biz community I would think. The T&A are limited in what they can do, despite what some on this list think. For example, they have been pushing IPv6 and DNSSEC for a decade now with only marginal uptake of either. Asking them to re-engineer the entire Internet is a complete non-starter. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 16:31:50 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:31:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] clean version available Message-ID: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From charityg at diplomacy.edu Wed Jun 12 17:17:15 2013 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:17:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Our own worst enemies?? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi De, My take on this is that when it comes to personal information that is being placed on a database with proper documentation as to who is allowed to view the said documentation, and when there is a breach to such agreement pertaining to personal information being divulged without consent, then there is outrage. For instance, FERPA (Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974) prohibits divulging of student information unless there is written consent from the student. Once a child reaches 18 here in the US, parents are not even allowed to call the university for any information like enrollment or grades unless there is written notice by the student. It surely does not matter if that student lives in one roof with his/her parents - the information is kept confidential. Plus, anybody who handles student information has to undergo FERPA training and be certified in order to handle student information. My experience in the Philippines is different because if one is under 21 years old, they are still considered a minor. As far as I know, FERPA rights are explained to any 18 year old student entering college/university. I am working with pre-college, college and ABE students here in the US. With the exception of my ABE, I would consider most of these kids I am working with to be the digital natives. Yes, they like to live "loud." Inadvertently, these kids like to take their "drama" online most of the time. There was a recent story of a 27 year old who went to Dunkin Donuts, confronted them for not giving her a receipt and for the rudeness of the lady who served her the other day. Then she informed them that she was videotaping the whole thing so she could post it on Facebook (cussing and all). Apparently, the drama she hoped would gain her 15 minutes of fame backfired. Of course, there's also the other side of this generation that are self-regulating. So yes, it is a generation divide. It's also a different culture that digital natives lose themselves in technology. Parenting styles are different - you can have a set of parents who would shove an iPad to a whining kid just to shut them up. It's a reality I have seen everywhere. That's a shift in values. There is an extensive entitlement mentality going on in this generation. I would not be surprised if unusually outrageous behavior before is now considered normal - with the likes of Lindsay Lohan, Amanda Bynes and Kim Kardashian tweetering every move they make (that includes private moments), there's not a lot these days that kids would not hide. A lot of people in this list are parents, too, so if that is something that worries most of you - especially if they turn out to be "loud." If you want to be that parent who acts like an actual parent, you can keep your kids in line. But if one thinks that it's cool to be your kid's friend than be a parent, you got yourself a bigger problem. Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I support the statement which is just about to be read in Geneva. > > In the context of these revelations I find this information disturbing > to say the least - a film clip from the BBC titled "Logging our lives with > wearable technology" > And Google provided me with an interesting thought this morning: Quote of > the Day - Emile Zola - > "If you ask me what I came into this life to do, I will tell you: I came to > live out loud." > I have the impression that the digital native lives "out loud" habitually. > I wonder if digital natives would experience the same sense of outrage and > betrayal that many of us are feeling. > Is this a generation divide, a shift in values, or a suitable case for > capacity building? > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From charityg at diplomacy.edu Wed Jun 12 17:27:34 2013 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 16:27:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: Ah..a genetic marker. They have been studying that for too long in the hope that if genetic mutations show that there is a predisposition to violent or criminal behavior, they could use that as a mitigating evidence to lower a sentence if proven there is a genetic predisposition. -Charity G.E. On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > On a lighter note there's mention of the existence of a 'criminal gene' in > today's paper. Maybe they'll find it... > > -C > > > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> The DNA is newish. >> >> avri >> >> On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:19, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >> >> > For a very long time, this has been going on. >> > >> > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >> > >> > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >> > >> > +234 8027510179 >> > >> > On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" >> wrote: >> > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. >> Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into >> the 'mugshot' stage >> > >> > -C >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. >> > >> > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to >> take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. >> > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. >> > >> > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. >> > So figured you all should be warned, >> > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having >> been elected. >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > 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: >> > 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: >> > 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: >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 17:46:30 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 00:46:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] The American Conservative: How State Secrecy Leads to War Message-ID: <51B8EC36.8090906@gmail.com> How State Secrecy Leads to War Why Bradley Manning has done more for American security than Seal Team Six (Via TomDispatch .) By Chase Madar . June 11, 2013 * * * Source Source The prosecution of Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' source inside the U.S. Army, will be pulling out all the stops when it calls to the stand a member of Navy SEAL Team 6, the unit that assassinated Osama bin Laden. The SEAL (in partial disguise, as his identity is secret) is expected to tell the military judge that classified documents leaked by Manning to WikiLeaks were found on bin Laden's laptop. That will, in turn, be offered as proof not that bin Laden had internet access like two billion other earthlings, but that Manning has "aided the enemy," a capital offense. Think of it as courtroom cartoon theater: the heroic slayer of the /jihadi/ super-villain testifying against the ultimate bad soldier, a five-foot-two-inch gay man facing 22 charges in military court and accused of the biggest security breach in U.S. history. But let's be clear on one thing: Manning, the young Army intelligence analyst who leaked thousands of public documents and passed them on to WikiLeaks, has done far more for U.S. national security than SEAL Team 6. The assassination of Osama bin Laden, the spiritual (but not operational) leader of al-Qaeda, was a fist-pumping moment of triumphalism for a lot of Americans, as the Saudi fanatic had come to incarnate not just al-Qaeda but all national security threats. This was true despite the fact that, since 9/11, al-Qaeda has been able to do remarkably little harm to the United States or to the West in general. (The deadliest attack in a Western nation since 9/11, the 2004 Atocha bombing in Madrid, was not committed by bin Laden's organization, though white-shoe foreign policy magazines and think tanks routinely get this wrong, "al-Qaeda" being such a handy/sloppy metonym for all terrorism.) Al-Qaeda remains a simmering menace, but as an organization hardly the greatest threat to the United States. In fact, if you measure national security in blood and money, as many of us still do, by far the greatest threat to the United States over the past dozen years has been our own clueless foreign policy. *The Wages of Cluelessness Is Death* Look at the numbers. The attacks of September 11, 2001, killed 3,000 people, a large-scale atrocity by any definition. Still, roughly double that number of American military personnel have been killed in Washington's invasion and occupation of Iraq and its no-end-in-sight war in Afghanistan. Add in private military contractors who have died in both war zones, along with recently discharged veterans who have committed suicide , and the figure triples. The number of seriously wounded in both wars is cautiously estimated at 50,000. And if you dare to add in as well the number of Iraqis , Afghans , and foreign coalition personnel killed in both wars, the death toll reaches at least a hundred 9/11s and probably more. Did these people die to make America safer? Don't insult our intelligence. Virtually no one thinks the Iraq War has made the U.S. more secure, though many believe the war created new threats . After all, the Iraq we liberated is now in danger of collapsing into another bitter, bloody civil war, is a close ally of Iran, and sells the preponderance of its oil to China. Over the years, the drain on the U.S. treasury for all of this will be at least several trillion dollars. As for Afghanistan, after the disruption of al-Qaeda camps, accomplished 10 years ago, it is difficult to see how the ongoing pacification campaign there and the CIA drone war across the border in Pakistan's tribal areas have enhanced the security of the U.S. in any significant way. Both wars of occupation were ghastly strategic choices that have killed hundreds of thousands, wounded many more, sent millions into exile , and destabilized what Washington, in good times, used to call "the arc of instability." Why have our strategic choices been so disastrous? In large part because they have been militantly clueless. Starved of important information, both the media and public opinion were putty in the hands the Bush administration and its neocon followers as they dreamt up and then put into action their geopolitical fantasies. It has since become fashion for politicians who supported the war to blame the Iraq debacle on "bad intelligence." But as former CIA analyst Paul Pillar reminds us , the carefully cherry-picked "Intel" about Saddam Hussein's WMD program was really never the issue. After all, the CIA's classified intelligence estimate on Iraq argued that, even if that country's ruler Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction (which he didn't), he would never use them and was therefore not a threat. Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2003, was one of the few people with access to that CIA report who bothered to take the time to read it. Initially keen on the idea of invading Iraq, he changed his mind and voted against the invasion. What if the entire nation had had access to that highly classified document? What if bloggers, veterans' groups, clergy, journalists, educators, and other opinion leaders had been able to see the full intelligence estimate, not just the morsels cherry-picked by Cheney and his mates? Even then, of course, there was enough information around to convince millions of people across the globe of the folly of such an invasion, but what if some insider had really laid out the whole truth, not just the cherry-picked pseudofacts in those months and the games being played by other insiders to fool Congress and the American people into a war of choice and design in the Middle East? As we now know, whatever potentially helpful information there was remained conveniently beyond our sight until a military and humanitarian disaster was unleashed. Any private-sector employee who screwed up this badly would be fired on the spot, or at the very least put under full-scale supervision. And this was the gift of Bradley Manning: thanks to his trove of declassified documents our incompetent foreign policy elites finally have the supervision they manifestly need. Not surprisingly, foreign policy elites don't much enjoy being supervised. Like orthopedic surgeons, police departments, and every other professional group under the sun, the military brass and their junior partners in the diplomatic corps feel deeply that they should be exempt from public oversight. Every volley of revealed documents from WikiLeaks has stimulated the same outraged response from that crew: near-total secrecy is essential to the delicate arts of diplomacy and war. Let us humor our foreign policy elites (who have feelings too), despite their abysmal 10-year resumé of charred rubble and mangled limbs. There may be a time and a place for secrecy, even duplicity, in statecraft. But history shows that a heavy blood-price is often attached to diplomats saying one thing in public and meaning something else in private. In the late 1940s, for instance, the United States publicly declared that the Korean peninsula was not viewed by Washington as a vital interest, emboldening the North to invade the South and begin the Korean War. Our government infamously escalated the Vietnam War behind a smokescreen of official secrecy, distortion, and lies. Saddam Hussein rolled into Kuwait after U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie told the Ba'athist strongman that he could do what he pleased on his southern border and still bask in the good graces of Washington. This is not a record of success. So what's wrong with diplomats doing more of their business in the daylight---a very old idea not cooked up at Julian Assange's kitchen table five years ago? Check out the mainstream political science literature on international relations and you'll find rigorous, respectable, borderline-boring studies touting the virtues of relative transparency in statecraft---as, for example, in making the post-Napoleonic Concert of Europe such a durable peace deal. On the other hand, when nation-states get coy about their commitments to other states or to their own citizenry, violent disaster is often in the offing. *Dystopian Secrecy * Foreign policy elites regularly swear that the WikiLeaks example, if allowed to stand, puts us on a perilous path towards "total transparency." Wrong again. In fact, without the help of WikiLeaks and others, there is no question that the U.S. national security state, as the most recent phone and Internet revelations indicate, is moving towards something remarkably like total state secrecy. The classification of documents has gone through the roof. Washington classified a staggering 92 million public records in 2011, up from 77 million the year before and from 14 million in 2003. (By way of comparison, the various troves of documents Manning leaked add up to less than 1% of what Washington classifies annually---not exactly the definition of "total transparency".) Meanwhile, the declassification of ancient secrets within the national security state moves at a near-geological tempo. The National Security Agency, for example, only finished declassifying documents from the Madison presidency (1809-1817) in 2011. No less indicative of Washington's course, the prosecution of governmental whistleblowers in the Obama years has burned with a particularly vindictive fury, fueled by both political parties and Congress as well as the White House. Our government secrecy fetishists invest their security clearances (held by an elite coterie of 4.8 million people) and the information security (InfoSec) regime they continue to elaborate with all sorts of protective powers over life and limb. But what gets people killed, no matter how much our pols and pundits strain to deny it, aren't InfoSec breaches or media leaks, but foolish and clueless strategic choices. Putting the blame on leaks is a nice way to pass the buck, but at the risk of stating the obvious, what has killed 1,605 U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan since 2009 is the war in Afghanistan---not Bradley Manning or any of the other five leakers whom Obama has prosecuted under the Espionage Act of 1917. Leaks and whistleblowers should not be made scapegoats for bad strategic choices, which would have been a whole lot less bad had they been informed by all the relevant facts. Pardon my utopian extremism, but knowing what your government is doing really isn't such a bad thing and it has to do with aiding the (American) public, not the enemy. Knowing what your government is doing is not some special privilege that the government generously bestows on us when we're good and obedient citizens, it's an obligation that goes to the heart of the matter in a free country. After all, it should be ordinary citizens like us who make the ultimate decision about whether war X is worth fighting or not, worth escalating or not, worth ending or not. When such momentous public decisions are made and the public doesn't have---isn't allowed to have---a clue, you end up in a fantasy land of aggressive actions that, over the past dozen years, have gotten hundreds of thousands killed and left us in a far more dangerous world. These are the wages of dystopian government secrecy. Despite endless panic and hysteria on the subject from both major parties, the White House, and Congress, leaks have been good for us. They're how we came to learn much about the Vietnam War, much about the Watergate scandal, and most recently, far more about state surveillance of our phone calls and email. Bradley Manning's leaks in particular have already yielded real, tangible benefits, most vividly their small but significant role in sparking the rebellion that ejected a dictator in Tunisia and the way they indirectly expedited our military exit from Iraq. Manning's leaked reports of U.S. atrocities in Iraq, displayed in newspapers globally, made it politically impossible for the Iraqi authorities to perpetuate domestic legal immunity for America troops, Washington's bedrock condition for a much-desired continuing presence there. If it weren't for Manning's leaks, the U.S. might still be in Iraq, killing and being killed for no legitimate reason, and that is the very opposite of national security. *Knowledge is Not Evil* Thanks to Bradley Manning, our disaster-prone elites have gotten a dose of the adult supervision they so clearly require. Instead of charging him with aiding the enemy, the Obama administration ought to send him a get-out-of-jail-free card and a basket of fruit. If we're going to stop the self-inflicted wars that continue to hemorrhage blood and money, we need to get a clue, fast. Should we ever bother to learn from the uncensored truth of our foreign policy failures, which have destroyed so many more lives than the late bin Laden could ever have hoped, we at least stand a chance of not repeating them. I am not trying to soft-pedal or sanitize Manning's magnificent act of civil disobedience. The young private humiliated the U.S. Army by displaying for all to see their complete lack of real information security. Manning has revealed the diplomatic corps to be hard at work shilling for garment manufacturers in Haiti, for Big Pharma in Europe , and under signed orders from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to collect biometric data and credit card numbers from their foreign counterparts. Most important, Manning brought us face to face with two disastrous wars, forcing Americans to share a burden of knowledge previously shouldered only by our soldiers, whom we love to call heroes from a very safe distance. Did Manning violate provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice? He certainly did, and a crushing sentence of possibly decades in military prison is surely on its way. Military law is marvelously elastic when it comes to rape and sexual assault and perfectly easygoing about the slaughter of foreign civilians, but it puts on a stern face for the unspeakable act of declassifying documents. But the young private's act of civil defiance was in fact a first step in reversing the pathologies that have made our foreign policy a string of self-inflicted homicidal disasters. By letting us in on more than a half million "secrets," Bradley Manning has done far more for American national security than SEAL Team 6 ever did. /Chase Madar is an attorney and the author of /The Passion of Bradley Manning: The Story Behind the WikiLeaks Whistleblower /. A //TomDispatch regular/ /, he writes for the /London Review of Books/, /Le Monde Diplomatique/, the /American Conservative/, and CounterPunch/. /He is covering the Manning trial daily for the /Nation/ magazine/ /. Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Copyright 2013 Chase Madar / /http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-state-secrecy-leads-to-war/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-state-secrecy-leads-to-war / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer_famfamfam.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: email_famfamfam.png Type: image/png Size: 641 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: instapaper.png Type: image/png Size: 1696 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 480px-Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 45017 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: madarpbk2013.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 15574 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 12 18:31:08 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:31:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] Spies Without Borders : Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World. In-Reply-To: <51B8EC36.8090906@gmail.com> References: <51B8EC36.8090906@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B8F6AC.4020506@eff.org> Greetings all, I'm pleased to share our Spies Without Borders series of posts looking into how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect the international community. Spies Without Borders : Using Domestic Networks to Spy on the World. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC) and Katitza Rodriguez (EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spies-without-borders-i-using-domestic-networks-spy-world -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kstouray at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 19:14:23 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:14:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM Message-ID: Dear all, This was bound to happen ... http://prism-break.org/ Katim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jun 12 19:16:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 01:16:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] As there have been no objections, the draft statement has been approved by consensus. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process! Greetings, Norbert > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the text below > already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as posted by Deirdre and > included for reference below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC adopting and publishing this > statement, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to > do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Wednesday June 12, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, the proposed statement > will be deemed to have been adopted by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If > there are any objections, we will make a serious attempt to modify the > statement in a way that would make it acceptable to all Caucus > members. If that process of trying to reach full consensus fails, we > will proceed to the rough consensus process which involves determining > whether there is an overwhelming majority in support of the proposed > statement. As Sala has already mentioned, we would use an online poll > as our method of choice for determining whether there is an > overwhelming majority in support. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams > > (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > This is the text we are suggesting. > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > > > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > > > Foundation (EFF) > > > > > > > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > > > in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously > > > compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons > > > particularly, we object to the inclusion of > > > DRM in HTML5. > > > > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their > > > statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kstouray at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 19:16:23 2013 From: kstouray at gmail.com (Katim S. Touray) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 23:16:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM In-Reply-To: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> References: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Interesting indeed! So much so that I sent the link to the list before I realized you had forwarded the link. Sorry for my bad! Katim On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:17 PM, parminder wrote: > "Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop > reporting your online activities to the American government with these free > alternatives to proprietary software." > http://prism-break.org/ > > Interesting!! > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jun 12 20:29:30 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 02:29:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> Roland Perry wrote: > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > freely? Whether we like it or not, Disney Movies are part of culture. If the typical way to watch such movies is to do via one's computer, and it is impossible to watch them on operating system platforms which are Free Software (aka Open Source software), then people will have to choose between enjoying their human right to privacy (let's face it, there is no trustworthy way to protect one's privacy while using an operating system platform which is not Free Software) and enjoying their human right to fully participate in culture. Of course, if the introduction of DRM for movies is fully successful, it won't be long before DRM is also introduced for other types of content. For example, DRM for business correspondence. Ouch, then you suddenly can't read business correspondence if you're not using a “trusted platform”. If more and more important content gets DRM-encumbered, it would remain legally possible to develop and to distribute operating system platforms which are Free Software, but that would be increasingly pointless, as those platforms would be less and less useful. (I'm talking about use as a general-purpose desktop computer platform here, not about use in special-purpose embedded systems.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 20:46:15 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:46:15 +1200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Stand with Edward Snowden References: Message-ID: <18A8A739-F0AD-42E0-A746-8CB6C78DC171@gmail.com> AVAAZ like many others have started gathering support for Snowden. Kind Regards, Sala Begin forwarded message: > From: "Ricken Patel - Avaaz.org" > Date: June 13, 2013, 10:37:57 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com" > Subject: Stand with Edward Snowden > > Hi all, > > > > This 29-year-old just gave up his whole life to blow the whistle on the US’s insane PRISM program -- which has hacked all our emails, Skype messages and Facebook posts for years. If millions of us act urgently and get behind him, we can help press the US to crack down on PRISM, not Edward. Let’s stand with him before it's too late: > > > This 29 year-old analyst just gave up his whole life -- his girlfriend, his job, and his home -- to blow the whistle on the US government's shocking PRISM program -- which has been reading and recording our emails, Skype messages, Facebook posts and phone calls for years. > > When Bradley Manning passed this kind of data to Wikileaks, the US threw him naked into solitary confinement in conditions that the UN called "cruel, inhumane and degrading". > > The authorities and press are deciding right now how to handle this scandal. If millions of us stand with Edward in the next 48 hours, it will send a powerful statement that he should be treated like the brave whistleblower that he is, and it should be PRISM, and not Edward, that the US cracks down on: > > https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global_do/?bhuVRdb&v=25813 > > PRISM is profoundly disturbing: it gives the US government unlimited access to all of our personal email and social media accounts on Google, Youtube, Facebook, Skype, Hotmail, Yahoo! and much more. They're recording billions of our messages every month and the CIA can now or in the future use the information to prosecute, persecute, or blackmail us, our friends or our families! > > Edward was horrified by this unprecedented violation of individual privacy. So he copied large amounts of files, sent them to the Guardian newspaper for publication and escaped to Hong Kong. His bravery not only exposed PRISM, but has started a domino effect around the world, shining a light on secret spy programs in Canada, the UK and Australia in just days! Now he's trapped in Hong Kong, waiting to be arrested. A global outcry could save him from extradition to the US, and encourage other countries to grant him asylum. > > We can't let the US do to Edward what they did to Bradley Manning. Let's urgently stand with him, and against PRISM: > > https://secure.avaaz.org/en/stop_prism_global_do/?bhuVRdb&v=25813 > > Sometimes the things our governments do are simply breathtaking. When heroic individuals like Edward have risked their own freedoms to bring scandals of this scale into light, the Avaaz community has come together to demand fair treatment -- and won. When half a million of us joined with other organizations and activists calling on the US government to stop its cruel treatment of Bradley Manning, he was relocated to a medium-security prison and taken out of solitary confinement. If we act quickly, we might do better for Edward, and help him win the fight he's bravely taken on, for all our sakes. > > With hope and determination, > > Ricken, Emma, Oli, Mia, Allison, Ari, Dalia, Laura and the whole Avaaz team > > PS - Many Avaaz campaigns are started by members of our community! Start yours now and win on any issue - local, national or global: http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/start_a_petition/?bgMYedb&v=25795 > > > MORE INFORMATION: > > Edward Snowden: the whistleblower behind the NSA surveillance revelations (The Guardian) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance > > Edward Snowden Contact Glenn Greenwald Should Be 'Disappeared', Security Officials 'Overheard Saying' (Huffington Post) > http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/10/nsa-leaker-and-journalist-should-be-disappeared-overheard_n_3414346.html?utm_hp_ref=canada&ir=Canada > > NSA PRISM program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others (The Guardian) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data > > Prism scandal: Government program secretly probes Internet servers (Chicago Tribune) > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-nsa-prism-scandal-20130607,0,301166.story > > PRISM by the Numbers: A Guide to the Government’s Secret Internet Data-Mining Program (TIME) > http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/06/06/prism-by-the-numbers-a-guide-to-the-governments-secret-internet-data-mining-program/ > > Anger swells after NSA phone records court order revelations (The Guardian) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/obama-administration-nsa-verizon-records > > Data-collection program got green light from MacKay in 2011 (Globe and Mail) > http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/data-collection-program-got-green-light-from-mackay-in-2011/article12444909/ > > Greens unveil plan to require warrant to access phone and internet records (The Guardian) > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/greens-warrant-phone-internet-records > > > Support the Avaaz Community! > We're entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way. > > > > > Avaaz.org is a 22-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world's people shape global decision-making. ("Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 18 countries on 6 continents and operates in 17 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz's biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter. > > You are getting this message because you signed "Stop the Frankenfish attack" on 2013-01-17 using the email address salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com. > To ensure that Avaaz messages reach your inbox, please add avaaz at avaaz.org to your address book. To change your email address, language settings, or other personal information, contact us, or simply go here to unsubscribe. > > To contact Avaaz, please do not reply to this email. Instead, write to us at www.avaaz.org/en/contact or call us at +1-888-922-8229 (US). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Wed Jun 12 21:24:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 03:24:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130613032404.4503c6c9@quill.bollow.ch> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:20:43 -0400 schrieb McTim : > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > > McTIm, what you are talking about is entirely a different matter, > > and nothing to do with PRISM which pried on actual content of non > > US ians > > well to be precise, the NSA has been doing this for decades. PRISM > being a supposedly 20M USD program can do nothing of that sort. I tend to think that among those who know and understand what is going on, the name “PRISM” probably is not used to refer to any intelligance gathering programme, but rather to some kind of unified web platform that provides an interface to information gathered by various means (some of which probably involve “national security letters”). The information gathering programmes themselves are probably much more expensive. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From katitza at eff.org Wed Jun 12 21:32:24 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 18:32:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <20130613032404.4503c6c9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> <20130613032404.4503c6c9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51B92128.9040507@eff.org> This is what we have understood so far What We Need to Know About PRISM https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-about-prism On 6/12/13 6:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:20:43 -0400 > schrieb McTim : > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, parminder >> wrote: >>> McTIm, what you are talking about is entirely a different matter, >>> and nothing to do with PRISM which pried on actual content of non >>> US ians >> well to be precise, the NSA has been doing this for decades. PRISM >> being a supposedly 20M USD program can do nothing of that sort. > I tend to think that among those who know and understand what is > going on, the name “PRISM” probably is not used to refer to any > intelligance gathering programme, but rather to some kind of unified > web platform that provides an interface to information gathered by > various means (some of which probably involve “national security > letters”). The information gathering programmes themselves are probably > much more expensive. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 21:40:48 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:10:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: I thought it would get used the other way around, they would identify 'criminals' at birth and prosecute them well in advance (like in the movies) -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:57 AM, Charity Gamboa wrote: > Ah..a genetic marker. They have been studying that for too long in the > hope that if genetic mutations show that there is a predisposition to > violent or criminal behavior, they could use that as a mitigating evidence > to lower a sentence if proven there is a genetic predisposition. > > -Charity G.E. > > > On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On a lighter note there's mention of the existence of a 'criminal gene' >> in today's paper. Maybe they'll find it... >> >> -C >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> The DNA is newish. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 8 Jun 2013, at 13:19, Sonigitu Ekpe wrote: >>> >>> > For a very long time, this has been going on. >>> > >>> > Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA >>> > >>> > "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." >>> > >>> > +234 8027510179 >>> > >>> > On Jun 8, 2013 6:09 PM, "Chaitanya Dhareshwar" >>> wrote: >>> > I honestly actually thought they were doing this for a long time now. >>> Fingerprint, retina, photographs and DNA sample for everyone who comes into >>> the 'mugshot' stage >>> > >>> > -C >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > Just want to warn* all who may chance to cross into geographical USA. >>> > >>> > The US Supreme Court last week upheld the authorization for police to >>> take a DNA sample from anyone arrested for any crime. >>> > And this DNA will become part of your permanent US record. >>> > >>> > Cannot tell you how much I hate this ruling. >>> > So figured you all should be warned, >>> > in case it missed your notice, being just an internal thing. >>> > >>> > avri >>> > >>> > >>> > * if i am allowed to use that word as an active verb without having >>> been elected. >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > 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: >>> > 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: >>> > 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: >>> 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: >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 21:42:02 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:12:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: Specific movie - Gattaca. -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > I thought it would get used the other way around, they would identify > 'criminals' at birth and prosecute them well in advance (like in the movies) > > -C > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 22:17:41 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 22:17:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data In-Reply-To: <51B92128.9040507@eff.org> References: <51B83788.1070606@itforchange.net> <51B8A760.8000501@itforchange.net> <20130613032404.4503c6c9@quill.bollow.ch> <51B92128.9040507@eff.org> Message-ID: I mentioned this issue - Google request - in our letter to theUS Congress earlier today as a footnote to the last paragraph. So, it was there :-) On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:32 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > This is what we have understood so far > > What We Need to Know About PRISM > https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/**2013/06/what-we-need-to-know-**about-prism > > > > On 6/12/13 6:24 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2013 13:20:43 -0400 >> schrieb McTim : >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:52 PM, parminder >>> wrote: >>> >>>> McTIm, what you are talking about is entirely a different matter, >>>> and nothing to do with PRISM which pried on actual content of non >>>> US ians >>>> >>> well to be precise, the NSA has been doing this for decades. PRISM >>> being a supposedly 20M USD program can do nothing of that sort. >>> >> I tend to think that among those who know and understand what is >> going on, the name “PRISM” probably is not used to refer to any >> intelligance gathering programme, but rather to some kind of unified >> web platform that provides an interface to information gathered by >> various means (some of which probably involve “national security >> letters”). The information gathering programmes themselves are probably >> much more expensive. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of > speech since 1990 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:19:44 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:49:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity for the purchase validation process? Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example this list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems)... In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player). Now I'm not supporting DRM, but this particular argument I feel cannot be substantiated. -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:59 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Roland Perry wrote: > > > Why would DRM on a Disney Movie download stifle the ability for the > > Open Source movement to continue to develop and distribute its work > > freely? > > Whether we like it or not, Disney Movies are part of culture. If the > typical way to watch such movies is to do via one's computer, and it > is impossible to watch them on operating system platforms which are > Free Software (aka Open Source software), then people will have to > choose between enjoying their human right to privacy (let's face it, > there is no trustworthy way to protect one's privacy while using an > operating system platform which is not Free Software) and enjoying > their human right to fully participate in culture. > > Of course, if the introduction of DRM for movies is fully successful, > it won't be long before DRM is also introduced for other types of > content. For example, DRM for business correspondence. Ouch, then you > suddenly can't read business correspondence if you're not using a > “trusted platform”. > > If more and more important content gets DRM-encumbered, it would > remain legally possible to develop and to distribute operating system > platforms which are Free Software, but that would be increasingly > pointless, as those platforms would be less and less useful. (I'm > talking about use as a general-purpose desktop computer platform > here, not about use in special-purpose embedded systems.) > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:22:01 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 08:52:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Great stuff! Fingers crossed this will help ensure DRM never sees the light of day. -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > As there have been no objections, the draft statement has been > approved by consensus. > > Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process! > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the text below > > already, and no objections so far. > > > > Please review the proposed statement text as posted by Deirdre and > > included for reference below. > > > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > > > If however you disagree with IGC adopting and publishing this > > statement, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to > > do so. > > > > ** Any objections should be posted by Wednesday June 12, 9am UTC. ** > > > > If no objections are received by that time, the proposed statement > > will be deemed to have been adopted by consensus. > > > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If > > there are any objections, we will make a serious attempt to modify the > > statement in a way that would make it acceptable to all Caucus > > members. If that process of trying to reach full consensus fails, we > > will proceed to the rough consensus process which involves determining > > whether there is an overwhelming majority in support of the proposed > > statement. As Sala has already mentioned, we would use an online poll > > as our method of choice for determining whether there is an > > overwhelming majority in support. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams > > > (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: > > > > > > > This is the text we are suggesting. > > > > > > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and > > > > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier > > > > Foundation (EFF) > > > > > > > > > > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) > > > > in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously > > > > compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons > > > > particularly, we object to the inclusion of > > > > DRM in HTML5. > > > > > > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their > > > > statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 12 23:54:22 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:54:22 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: We will be drafting a Press Release shortly. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Great stuff! Fingers crossed this will help ensure DRM never sees the light of day. > > -C > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> As there have been no objections, the draft statement has been >> approved by consensus. >> >> Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process! >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> > [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> > >> > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> > >> > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the text below >> > already, and no objections so far. >> > >> > Please review the proposed statement text as posted by Deirdre and >> > included for reference below. >> > >> > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> > >> > If however you disagree with IGC adopting and publishing this >> > statement, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to >> > do so. >> > >> > ** Any objections should be posted by Wednesday June 12, 9am UTC. ** >> > >> > If no objections are received by that time, the proposed statement >> > will be deemed to have been adopted by consensus. >> > >> > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If >> > there are any objections, we will make a serious attempt to modify the >> > statement in a way that would make it acceptable to all Caucus >> > members. If that process of trying to reach full consensus fails, we >> > will proceed to the rough consensus process which involves determining >> > whether there is an overwhelming majority in support of the proposed >> > statement. As Sala has already mentioned, we would use an online poll >> > as our method of choice for determining whether there is an >> > overwhelming majority in support. >> > >> > Greetings, >> > Norbert >> > >> > > On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams >> > > (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: >> > > >> > > > This is the text we are suggesting. >> > > > >> > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >> > > > supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >> > > > Foundation (EFF) >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >> > > > in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously >> > > > compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons >> > > > particularly, we object to the inclusion of >> > > > DRM in HTML5. >> > > > >> > > > We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >> > > > statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >> > > > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 13 02:46:45 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:46:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM In-Reply-To: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> References: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B96AD5.8020304@digsys.bg> On 12.06.13 20:17, parminder wrote: > "Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop > reporting your online activities to the American government with these > free alternatives to proprietary software." > http://prism-break.org/ > > Interesting!! > Yes, interesting. Interesting how people will believe anything, that they might think would solve their "problem". The issue here is that NSA collects data in transit and at the server side. Not so much on your own computer. They don't have to, actually. So even if you use Linux, accessing Facebook, or even mailing to this mailing list (or any other mailing list that you believe is "closed") still gets intercepted and processed. By avoiding Windows, you simply cut off Microsoft. By avoiding OS X you cut of Apple. But you never cut off NSA. You also hardly cut off Google significantly, as they already bribed millions of web site maintainers to include their spyware on their sites, in exchange of money. If you need to do things securely, you need to understand the process and build your own tools and environment -- in the process "restricting" your possibilities. Then, you should be prepared to deal with all the intelligence and counter-intelligence that will get thrown at you. In short, "normal people" can do very little "against" NSA spying on them, as this involves spending more than NSA spends. Which is hardly doable. Even for most governments. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 03:03:12 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:03:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM In-Reply-To: <51B96AD5.8020304@digsys.bg> References: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> <51B96AD5.8020304@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <51B96EB0.9050002@gmail.com> Kalchev While some call me a conspiracy nut, this sounds conspiratorial... and I am afraid you are quite serious. Are you certain about this view? The reason I ask is because then we need T&A (and Science and Technology more generally) to be democratised so that this kind of spying is limited or difficult to do. This is what could be called a social cost (i.e. bilateral arrangements that have third party implications which are negative) and which need to be internalised into the technology (i.e. go to design issues) to minimise them... otherwise it is Bentham's Panopticon... And it just means that unless one is air gapped, people could be Swartzed... I mean the statements thus far deal with many Human Rights, but the spying covers even attorney client privilege (they do this Guantanamo and have done it with Bradley Manning) without which there is no justice, no law, and a peculiar order... Was info used by NSA etc to squeeze Swartz etc all become relevant... He was broken by a state that seemed to have inordinate power... On 2013/06/13 09:46 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: > > On 12.06.13 20:17, parminder wrote: >> "Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop >> reporting your online activities to the American government with >> these free alternatives to proprietary software." >> http://prism-break.org/ >> >> Interesting!! >> > > Yes, interesting. Interesting how people will believe anything, that > they might think would solve their "problem". > > The issue here is that NSA collects data in transit and at the server > side. Not so much on your own computer. They don't have to, actually. > So even if you use Linux, accessing Facebook, or even mailing to this > mailing list (or any other mailing list that you believe is "closed") > still gets intercepted and processed. > > By avoiding Windows, you simply cut off Microsoft. By avoiding OS X > you cut of Apple. But you never cut off NSA. You also hardly cut off > Google significantly, as they already bribed millions of web site > maintainers to include their spyware on their sites, in exchange of > money. > > If you need to do things securely, you need to understand the process > and build your own tools and environment -- in the process > "restricting" your possibilities. Then, you should be prepared to deal > with all the intelligence and counter-intelligence that will get > thrown at you. > > In short, "normal people" can do very little "against" NSA spying on > them, as this involves spending more than NSA spends. Which is hardly > doable. Even for most governments. > > Daniel > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 02:46:38 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:46:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL Re: Revised Draft IGC Statement #DRM in HTML5 In-Reply-To: <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B21415.2070309@catherine-roy.net> <51B36756.9060305@catherine-roy.net> <51B371F9.40307@catherine-roy.net> <20130609045242.GA4731@tarvainen.info> <769A32CD836C4156B92D9D74E49377BC@Toshiba> <20130610105515.4a6fc71b@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613011607.2876ed8a@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51B96ACE.4000803@gmail.com> Norbert Well done to you, Caroline, Gurstein, Diedre and I think one other that helped draft/edit the first run of the Statement... The co-cos are doing a sterling job! Thanks for respecting diversity, taking a lot of personal flak for it and putting up with all of us 'prima donna's' on this list :) Riaz On 2013/06/13 02:16 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > As there have been no objections, the draft statement has been > approved by consensus. > > Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process! > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> >> We have had quite a few expressions of support for the text below >> already, and no objections so far. >> >> Please review the proposed statement text as posted by Deirdre and >> included for reference below. >> >> If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> >> If however you disagree with IGC adopting and publishing this >> statement, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to >> do so. >> >> ** Any objections should be posted by Wednesday June 12, 9am UTC. ** >> >> If no objections are received by that time, the proposed statement >> will be deemed to have been adopted by consensus. >> >> NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If >> there are any objections, we will make a serious attempt to modify the >> statement in a way that would make it acceptable to all Caucus >> members. If that process of trying to reach full consensus fails, we >> will proceed to the rough consensus process which involves determining >> whether there is an overwhelming majority in support of the proposed >> statement. As Sala has already mentioned, we would use an online poll >> as our method of choice for determining whether there is an >> overwhelming majority in support. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 05:38:49PM -0400, Deirdre Williams >>> (williams.deirdre at gmail.com) wrote: >>> >>>> This is the text we are suggesting. >>>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) endorses and >>>> supports the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier >>>> Foundation (EFF) >>>> >>>> >>>> We believe that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) >>>> in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously >>>> compromise the rights of end users; for these reasons >>>> particularly, we object to the inclusion of >>>> DRM in HTML5. >>>> >>>> We fully endorse the arguments raised by the EFF in their >>>> statement "EFF's Formal Objection to the HTML WG Draft Charter" >>>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 13 04:01:25 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:01:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Opt out of PRISM In-Reply-To: <51B96EB0.9050002@gmail.com> References: <51B8AD2D.20400@itforchange.net> <51B96AD5.8020304@digsys.bg> <51B96EB0.9050002@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B97C55.2050607@digsys.bg> On 13.06.13 10:03, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Kalchev > > While some call me a conspiracy nut, this sounds conspiratorial... and > I am afraid you are quite serious. I am of course not writing any of this with sarcasm. However, you need to understand I in no way set or suggest any policy -- merely apply common sense and point out where wishful thinking in the area of "I won't use (say) Microsoft's products so I will be safe from spying, because Microsoft is participating in the NSA program" is not really helping anyone not being tracked. I myself don't use Microsoft products for completely different reasons. > Are you certain about this view? The reason I ask is because then we > need T&A (and Science and Technology more generally) to be > democratised so that this kind of spying is limited or difficult to do. It is only logical I am certain of my own view and opinion. If you ask me, whether I am merely relaying someone else's view, my answer is no. There is one very tricky aspect about "democracy". It provides and protects both rights "to spy on someone" and "to not be tracked". In essence, as the thousands of years human history has recorded, the stronger will always prevail ("stronger", having multiple dimensions). The classical interpretation of this is the never ending competition between armor and weapons. When you invent an armor that resists any known weapon, a new weapon that defeats your armor will be invented, and so on. > This is what could be called a social cost (i.e. bilateral > arrangements that have third party implications which are negative) > and which need to be internalised into the technology (i.e. go to > design issues) to minimise them... otherwise it is Bentham's > Panopticon... The social cost is very obvious: you give up privacy and security in exchange to the ability to socialize with other people. If you don't want others to know where you are, what you do etc there is a simple solution - go live "in the woods", give up any communication technology and contacts with others. If you are willing to pay this price, then chances that someone will be spying on you will be reduced. Never eliminated, though. Observing others and staying aware of the situation around you is an intrinsic human instinct. Structures like NSA will always exist, both government and private. I don't believe any technology can be forced into designs that prevent "spying", because that might sort of make the technology less useful. It also definitely makes it "non-democratic". Case at point (a bit technical, I am afraid): Apple's iOS that runs their mobile devices is designed in such a way, that applications are always forcibly sandboxed and can access only their very own data. What this in essence means is that it is not possible to write any kind of "antivirus" or "anti-malware" application for iOS, because that application by definition needs access to "everything", which in essence means "being able to spy". Now, iOS is designed so no application can spy on another. If you open the slightest possibility for such applications to be written for iOS, you open the door to malware and viruses. While very valuable from end-user security standpoint, and protecting the device from the end-user lack of security, this is a form of "dictatorship", not "democracy". Whether it is any good, it all depends on the circumstances. At the end, this design does not prevent the OS itself to spy on it's users. > And it just means that unless one is air gapped, people could be > Swartzed... I mean the statements thus far deal with many Human > Rights, but the spying covers even attorney client privilege (they do > this Guantanamo and have done it with Bradley Manning) without which > there is no justice, no law, and a peculiar order... Was info used by > NSA etc to squeeze Swartz etc all become relevant... He was broken by > a state that seemed to have inordinate power... > This is all obviously outside of my field of expertise. Nothing in technology is related to Human Rights. With a kitchen knife you can both slice bread and kill a man, or many. Power balance is important in nature and no matter what our desires are, it all happens. If NSA is too strong today, this only means it will have balancing power at least that strong of not stronger. Which is more appropriate for the society, to have few extremely powerful entities, potentially competing with each other, or to make sure power is distributed wider at lower levels is perhaps the primary question. But, I don't believe the US will give up on NSA being "the most powerful", ever. As long as they can. Daniel > > On 2013/06/13 09:46 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote: >> >> On 12.06.13 20:17, parminder wrote: >>> "Opt out of PRISM, the NSA’s global data surveillance program. Stop >>> reporting your online activities to the American government with >>> these free alternatives to proprietary software." >>> http://prism-break.org/ >>> >>> Interesting!! >>> >> >> Yes, interesting. Interesting how people will believe anything, that >> they might think would solve their "problem". >> >> The issue here is that NSA collects data in transit and at the server >> side. Not so much on your own computer. They don't have to, actually. >> So even if you use Linux, accessing Facebook, or even mailing to this >> mailing list (or any other mailing list that you believe is "closed") >> still gets intercepted and processed. >> >> By avoiding Windows, you simply cut off Microsoft. By avoiding OS X >> you cut of Apple. But you never cut off NSA. You also hardly cut off >> Google significantly, as they already bribed millions of web site >> maintainers to include their spyware on their sites, in exchange of >> money. >> >> If you need to do things securely, you need to understand the process >> and build your own tools and environment -- in the process >> "restricting" your possibilities. Then, you should be prepared to >> deal with all the intelligence and counter-intelligence that will get >> thrown at you. >> >> In short, "normal people" can do very little "against" NSA spying on >> them, as this involves spending more than NSA spends. Which is hardly >> doable. Even for most governments. >> >> Daniel >> >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 13 04:53:17 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 09:53:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: In message <51B858AC.4050000 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 23:17:00 on Wed, 12 Jun 2013, Keith Davidson writes >Unless you could enthuse a large number of ccTLD managers, the RIRs and >the Root Server operators to operate an alternate database The DNS root zone file is of little use to RIRs[1], and even IANA's database of allocations of blocks of AS numbers and IP addresses is of little practical use on a day to day basis. Sometimes people conflate the role of RIRs as occasional secondary DNS server hosts for ccTLDs with anything that impacts their core operations with respect to IP Addresses, and even being such a secondary host only requires receiving updates from the ccTLD operator and not ICANN. [1] I'm aware that one RIR operates a root server, but that's an entirely different project. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 05:20:42 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 05:20:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] The Story Unfolds Message-ID: <1adb01ce6817$4dd1ba90$e9752fb0$@gmail.com> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/?iref=obinsite New elements-- *Snowden says China hacked (among 60,000 others) by NSA *``more Americans disapprove than approve of the government's surveillance programs, 53% to 37%`` *`` 44% of Americans believe Snowden did the right thing by releasing details about the classified surveillance programs, while 42% said it was wrong`` *Vivian Redding: "Trust that the rule of law will be respected is also essential to the stability and growth of the digital economy, including transatlantic business. This is of paramount importance for individuals and companies alike." -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 13 05:29:19 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 10:29:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In message , at 08:49:44 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar writes >In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not >"pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity >for the purchase validation process? The most recent Disney movie I purchased was paid for with cash at my local gas station. It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen" (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted concept of "freedom of speech". Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't play the game? These days, with smart-TVs and browsers built into DVD players, are they going to be able to play DRM'd html content, or will the suppliers have another version in order to preserve their market amongst people who want to watch their movies on a TV, rather than a PC? -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 06:11:08 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:11:08 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] Message-ID: Dear Members of the IGC, Kindly find the Press Release citing our support for EFF's Objection. Please forward these to every Tech Organisation, media outlet, blog and national media agencies. The idea is to ensure maximum circulation. The Release will be published on the IGC website alongside the statement. For journalists who are members of the IGC please send to your own networks and feel free to cite. The coordinators thank Catherine Roy for assisting with drafting the Release. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IGC Press Release Supports EFF Objection #DRM in HTML5.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 9896 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 06:30:52 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:30:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130613123052.3023f1fb@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > The Release will be published on the IGC website > alongside the statement. Online now, and linked from the IGC homepage. http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 06:37:39 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:37:39 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: <20130613123052.3023f1fb@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613123052.3023f1fb@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I would like to invite IGC members to tweet the link containing our Press Release: http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:30 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Sala wrote: > > > The Release will be published on the IGC website > > alongside the statement. > > Online now, and linked from the IGC homepage. > > > http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 07:18:41 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:18:41 +0800 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> On 13/06/13 18:11, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > Dear Members of the IGC, > > Kindly find the Press Release citing our support for EFF's Objection. > Please forward these to every Tech Organisation, media outlet, blog > and national media agencies. The idea is to ensure maximum > circulation. The Release will be published on the IGC website > alongside the statement. For journalists who are members of the IGC > please send to your own networks and feel free to cite. Congratulations, it seems reports of the death of the IGC have been greatly exaggerated! PS. http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 is still blank, probably needs the text of the release pasted in. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 07:34:51 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:34:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:48 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls [Note: This item comes from friend Steve Schear. DLH] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls June 12 2013 The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual content of the calls. But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the content of your actual phone calls. For example, the ACLU notes: A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study a few years back foundthat reviewing people's social networking contacts alone was sufficient to determine their sexual orientation. Consider, metadata from email communications was sufficient to identify the mistress of then-CIA Director David Petraeus and then drive him out of office. The "who," "when" and "how frequently" of communications are oftenmore revealing than what is said or written. Calls between a reporter and a government whistleblower, for example, may reveal a relationship that can be incriminating all on its own. Repeated calls to Alcoholics Anonymous, hotlines for gay teens, abortion clinics or a gambling bookie may tell you all you need to know about a person's problems. If a politician were revealed to have repeatedly called a phone sex hotline after 2:00 a.m., no one would need to know what was said on the call before drawing conclusions. In addition sophisticated data-mining technologies have compounded the privacy implications by allowing the government to analyze terabytes of metadata and reveal far more details about a person's life than ever before. The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out: What [government officials] are trying to say is that disclosure of metadata-the details about phone calls, without the actual voice-isn't a big deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying: . They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 minutes. But they don't know what you talked about. . They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret. . They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know what was discussed. . They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of those calls remains safe from government intrusion. . They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody knows what you spoke about. Sorry, your phone records-oops, "so-called metadata"-can reveal a lot more about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never be correlated with other easily obtained data. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 07:43:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:43:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: > PS. > http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5is still blank, probably needs the text of the release pasted in. > > The link is fine when I checked. Hope you are able to access it. Appreciate your sending it onwards to your network. > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 07:46:32 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:46:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > >> PS. >> http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 >> is still blank, probably needs the text of the release pasted in. >> > The link is fine when I checked. Hope you are able to access it. I am not....it may be the case that the page was cached in your browser from when you were editing? All I see is the title on that page. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 13 07:48:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:18:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: That somewhat specious article still means the government knows less than metadata + actual content of the conversation. Consider, you might work for the suicide hotline and have called your supervisor there to tell her you were stuck in traffic on the Golden Gate Bridge. Or your mother might be a gynecologist while your next door neighbor works for the local planned parenthood office. As for my social networking contacts, they include known homosexuals, polyamorists, at least one person that has had a sex change and is now a woman .. and I'm heterosexual, and monogamous. Some logic does help, if you're not to put one and one together and occasionally get eleven. --srs (iPad) On 13-Jun-2013, at 17:04, "michael gurstein" wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:48 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You > Than the Content of Your Phonecalls > > [Note: This item comes from friend Steve Schear. DLH] > > "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your > Phonecalls June 12 2013 > ent-more-about-you-content-your-phonecalls> > > The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking > "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual > content of the calls. > > But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the > content of your actual phone calls. > > For example, the ACLU notes: > > A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study a few years back foundthat > reviewing people's social networking contacts alone was sufficient to > determine their sexual orientation. Consider, metadata from email > communications was sufficient to identify the mistress of then-CIA Director > David Petraeus and then drive him out of office. > > The "who," "when" and "how frequently" of communications are oftenmore > revealing than what is said or written. Calls between a reporter and a > government whistleblower, for example, may reveal a relationship that can be > incriminating all on its own. > > Repeated calls to Alcoholics Anonymous, hotlines for gay teens, abortion > clinics or a gambling bookie may tell you all you need to know about a > person's problems. If a politician were revealed to have repeatedly called a > phone sex hotline after 2:00 a.m., no one would need to know what was said > on the call before drawing conclusions. In addition sophisticated > data-mining technologies have compounded the privacy implications by > allowing the government to analyze terabytes of metadata and reveal far more > details about a person's life than ever before. > The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out: > > What [government officials] are trying to say is that disclosure of > metadata-the details about phone calls, without the actual voice-isn't a big > deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government > knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying: > > . They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 > minutes. But they don't know what you talked about. > . They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the > Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret. > . They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, > then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know > what was discussed. > . They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it > was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators > and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of > those calls remains safe from government intrusion. > . They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and > then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody > knows what you spoke about. > > Sorry, your phone records-oops, "so-called metadata"-can reveal a lot more > about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata > provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your > lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never > be correlated with other easily obtained data. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 07:55:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:25:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51B9B346.1080603@itforchange.net> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:04 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf > Of Dewayne Hendricks > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 6:48 AM > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You > Than the Content of Your Phonecalls > > [Note: This item comes from friend Steve Schear. DLH] > > "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your > Phonecalls June 12 2013 > ent-more-about-you-content-your-phonecalls> > > The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking > "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual > content of the calls. The problem is: for non US persons they are not even reassuring that.. They are simply saying nothing. Non USians are fair game for anything and everything.... That bugs me most in the present context. Although it shouldnt, this is nothing compared to admitting collateral damage and killing without warrant or declared war through drones, and then persuading Apple to take off the Drone attack news aggregator service as hurting (US) Apple cousumers/ users sentiment. I think user rights are basically USer rights now!! I only hope that the relatively vast constituency of middle class support base from developing countries for US's political leadership of emergent global social structure takes note. At least now! parminder > > But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the > content of your actual phone calls. > > For example, the ACLU notes: > > A Massachusetts Institute of Technology study a few years back foundthat > reviewing people's social networking contacts alone was sufficient to > determine their sexual orientation. Consider, metadata from email > communications was sufficient to identify the mistress of then-CIA Director > David Petraeus and then drive him out of office. > > The "who," "when" and "how frequently" of communications are oftenmore > revealing than what is said or written. Calls between a reporter and a > government whistleblower, for example, may reveal a relationship that can be > incriminating all on its own. > > Repeated calls to Alcoholics Anonymous, hotlines for gay teens, abortion > clinics or a gambling bookie may tell you all you need to know about a > person's problems. If a politician were revealed to have repeatedly called a > phone sex hotline after 2:00 a.m., no one would need to know what was said > on the call before drawing conclusions. In addition sophisticated > data-mining technologies have compounded the privacy implications by > allowing the government to analyze terabytes of metadata and reveal far more > details about a person's life than ever before. > The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out: > > What [government officials] are trying to say is that disclosure of > metadata-the details about phone calls, without the actual voice-isn't a big > deal, not something for Americans to get upset about if the government > knows. Let's take a closer look at what they are saying: > > . They know you rang a phone sex service at 2:24 am and spoke for 18 > minutes. But they don't know what you talked about. > . They know you called the suicide prevention hotline from the > Golden Gate Bridge. But the topic of the call remains a secret. > . They know you spoke with an HIV testing service, then your doctor, > then your health insurance company in the same hour. But they don't know > what was discussed. > . They know you received a call from the local NRA office while it > was having a campaign against gun legislation, and then called your senators > and congressional representatives immediately after. But the content of > those calls remains safe from government intrusion. > . They know you called a gynecologist, spoke for a half hour, and > then called the local Planned Parenthood's number later that day. But nobody > knows what you spoke about. > > Sorry, your phone records-oops, "so-called metadata"-can reveal a lot more > about the content of your calls than the government is implying. Metadata > provides enough context to know some of the most intimate details of your > lives. And the government has given no assurances that this data will never > be correlated with other easily obtained data. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 07:57:17 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:57:17 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: > > The link is fine when I checked. Hope you are able to access it. > > I am not....it may be the case that the page was cached in your > browser from when you were editing? > > All I see is the title on that page. > > You are right McTim, I did a hard refresh and saw what you were seeing. We > will try and rectify that asap. In the meantime, this is what it looked > like: > For Immediate Release The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus supports the Electronic Frontier Foundation concerns regarding DRM in HTML5 BERN & SUVA June 14 2013 – The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus adopted a statement this week supporting the formal objection lodged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) regarding the HTML Working Group's charter. As explained in the EFF's objection (see link: https://www.eff.org/pages/drm/w3c-formal-objection-html-wg), the W3C's Working Group responsible for developing the next version of HTML, a core technology for the World Wide Web, has published a draft specification regarding Digital Rights Management (DRM), the Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) specification. The EFF objection seeks to invalidate the HTML Working Group's mandate to develop DRM enabling technologies, as specified in the working group's charter - “supporting playback of protected content”. Much has been said about EME, especially since its advancement to *First Public Working Draft* status in May, 2012. Many worry about its impact on digital rights, access, fair use, privacy and innovation. Many have signified their concerns to the W3C, whether through letters, petitions and discussions, most notably on the various W3C mailing lists supporting communications of this work. Most recently, the EFF has filed a formal objection to tell the W3C that DRM has no place in HTML. The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) wishes to lend its voice to this movement of protest. The IGC believes that the inclusion of digital rights management (DRM) in HTML5 has the potential to stifle innovation and seriously compromise the rights of end users (see statement: http://igcaucus.org/igc-statement-drm-html5). The IGC therefore calls on the W3C to stop work on the Encrypted Media Extensions specification and revise its decision to include this work in the HTML Working Group charter. *About the Internet Governance Caucus* The policies that shape the Internet impact not only the development of the technologies themselves, but also the realization of internationally agreed human rights, social equity and interdependence, cultural concerns, and both social and economic development. Our vision is that Internet governance should be inclusive, people centered and development oriented. Our contributions to the various forums relevant to Internet governance, will strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all. Ends Source : Norbert Bollow & Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Internet Governance Caucus http://igcaucus.org/ coordinators at igcaucus.org > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 08:09:40 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 00:09:40 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I did another hard refresh and the link is working now: http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 09:01:36 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Your *nix system CAN most certainly play an xbox game. In this day and age you have every right to play your xbox games on linux, and linux games on your win8 box and windoze games on your mac, etc etc ad infinitum. Ref: https://www.google.co.in/#safe=off&q=how+to+play+xbox+games+on+linux&oq=how+to+play+xbox+games+on+linux So suppose they prevented you from playing it, would that be acceptable? (Ok the fact that you assumed it cannot be played means you've accepted it ^_^ but apart from that). Specifically wrt the publishers, see content is always difficult to regulate on a PC as against on a TV or such a relatively less versatile piece of consumer equipment, so they'll limit it using means that they know. Yes it's not perfect, but that doesnt justify DRM. Best regards, Chaitanya On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message gmail.com>, > at 08:49:44 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> writes > > In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not "pirated" >> - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity for the purchase >> validation process? >> > > The most recent Disney movie I purchased was paid for with cash at my > local gas station. > > It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen" (by > all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted concept of > "freedom of speech". > > Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to run > a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't play the game? > > These days, with smart-TVs and browsers built into DVD players, are they > going to be able to play DRM'd html content, or will the suppliers have > another version in order to preserve their market amongst people who want > to watch their movies on a TV, rather than a PC? > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Jun 13 09:05:05 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 06:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <1371128705.45372.YahooMailNeo@web125106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Sala, I also support, and thank you. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: McTim >Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Jeremy Malcolm >Sent: Thursday, 13 June 2013, 17:09 >Subject: Re: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] > > > >I did another hard refresh and the link is working now: > > >http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf >____________________________________________________________ >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 09:10:10 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:40:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] The Story Unfolds In-Reply-To: <1adb01ce6817$4dd1ba90$e9752fb0$@gmail.com> References: <1adb01ce6817$4dd1ba90$e9752fb0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: The poll they're using for the basis for that isn't really worth looking at. 1008 adults across 50 states, results are 'weighted' (specifically as per what gallup thinks is OK), and they ONLY thing they're confident about is the error range. Sigh. Ref: http://www.gallup.com/poll/163043/americans-disapprove-government-surveillance-programs.aspx(from the link given there) *Survey Methods * *Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 10-11, 2013, with a random sample of 1,008 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.* *For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.* *Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cellphone numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.* *Samples are weighted to correct for unequal selection probability, nonresponse, and double coverage of landline and cell users in the two sampling frames. They are also weighted to match the national demographics of gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, population density, and phone status (cellphone only/landline only/both, cellphone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2012 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older U.S. population. Phone status targets are based on the July-December 2011 National Health Interview Survey. Population density targets are based on the 2010 census. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting.* *In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.* -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:50 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak/?iref=obinsite > > New elements-- > > *Snowden says China hacked (among 60,000 others) by NSA > > *``more Americans disapprove than approve of the government's surveillance > programs, 53% to 37%`` > > *`` 44% of Americans believe Snowden did the right thing by releasing > details about the classified surveillance programs, while 42% said it was > wrong`` > > *Vivian Redding: "Trust that the rule of law will be respected is also > essential to the stability and growth of the digital economy, including > transatlantic business. This is of paramount importance for individuals and > companies alike." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 10:48:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:48:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130613164834.4b5396bb@quill.bollow.ch> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:46:32 -0400 schrieb McTim : > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > wrote: > > > >> PS. > >> http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > >> is still blank, probably needs the text of the release pasted in. > >> > > The link is fine when I checked. Hope you are able to access it. > > I am not....it may be the case that the page was cached in your > browser from when you were editing? > > All I see is the title on that page. Curiously, the link to the pdf isn't showing up on http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 while it is present on http://igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 Looking into this... Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Jun 13 10:58:36 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 15:58:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: In message <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com>, at 07:34:51 on Thu, 13 Jun 2013, michael gurstein writes >The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking >"metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual >content of the calls. > >But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the >content of your actual phone calls. This is as unsurprising a revelation as the defecation habits of bears. It's been recognised in UK surveillance law for over a decade now, with the acknowledgement that while you can't fail to identify which website someone went to (as traffic data) ISPs should not identify which page of the website was accessed. [I helped draft the paragraph concerned, maybe the first time a justice department minister has hosted a meeting for someone clutching an rfc]. So, for example, the authorities could tell (by making appropriate requests) that I went to a garden shop's website, but aren't supposed to be told if I looked at fertilizer (some of which can be used to make bombs) or geraniums (which can't). This (the restriction) might be of more practical importance if I went to a search engine site, where the results of the search should be out of bounds, but not any subsequent access of a site (and just the site, not the page) the search engine found. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:04:30 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:04:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com>, at 07:34:51 on Thu, > 13 Jun 2013, michael gurstein writes > >> The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking >> "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the actual >> content of the calls. >> >> But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than the >> content of your actual phone calls. > > > This is as unsurprising a revelation as the defecation habits of bears. > > It's been recognised in UK surveillance law for over a decade now, with the > acknowledgement that while you can't fail to identify which website someone > went to (as traffic data) ISPs should not identify which page of the website > was accessed. [I helped draft the paragraph concerned, maybe the first time > a justice department minister has hosted a meeting for someone clutching an > rfc]. > > So, for example, the authorities could tell (by making appropriate requests) > that I went to a garden shop's website, but aren't supposed to be told if I > looked at fertilizer (some of which can be used to make bombs) or geraniums > (which can't). > > This (the restriction) might be of more practical importance if I went to a > search engine site, where the results of the search should be out of bounds, > but not any subsequent access of a site (and just the site, not the page) > the search engine found. on a related note, this useful article in the Economist: http://preview.tinyurl.com/m2eghts -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:06:47 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:06:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights Message-ID: Hi all, Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the following principles:* *II – protecting privacy;* *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right of access to the Internet.* *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly involved.* *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be required to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* * * *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the standards set forth by regulation.* * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. Thank you, Carol -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MCI_INGLES (update).doc Type: application/msword Size: 115200 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:20:31 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:20:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> Message-ID: ok, I will check how the text is and include parminder's suggestion (p.s. all lists copied...so sorry for those who are in all of them - like me - since you will get multiple emails...) On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original > form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we > should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has > indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a >> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in >> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> M**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter >> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement**** >> >> ** ** >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Carol**** >> >> ** ** >> >> **** >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> wrote:**** >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......**** >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. "**** >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. **** >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."**** >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> **** >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the >> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote:**** >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote:**** >> >> Hi people**** >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..**** >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news...**** >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits.**** >> >> Best of the day..**** >> >> Nnenna**** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote:**** >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in**** >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in**** >> >> ** ** >> >> >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- **** >> >> *Carolina Rossini* **** >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/**** >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com***** >> >> skype: carolrossini**** >> >> @carolinarossini**** >> >> ** ** >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 11:37:30 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 17:37:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: <20130613164834.4b5396bb@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> <20130613164834.4b5396bb@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130613173730.18a48a5f@quill.bollow.ch> > Curiously, the link to the pdf isn't showing up on > http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > while it is present on > http://igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > > Looking into this... I'm still not sure what would have caused this (I haven't set up any of this) but we have a work-around now in the form of a redirect from www.igcaucus.org to igcaucus.org Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 11:41:09 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 03:41:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: <20130613173730.18a48a5f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> <20130613164834.4b5396bb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613173730.18a48a5f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: This link works Norbert: http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf Even when you do a Hard Refresh The other link which does not have the text is different. On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > Curiously, the link to the pdf isn't showing up on > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > > while it is present on > > > http://igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > > > > Looking into this... > > I'm still not sure what would have caused this (I haven't set up any of > this) but we have a work-around now in the form of a redirect from > www.igcaucus.org to igcaucus.org > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:06:36 2013 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:06:36 -0300 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Carolina, Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of privacy as a negative right alone*. That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. Best regards, Ivar On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with > you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco > Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian > Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative > Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so > it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in > other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. > Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries > due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been > incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and > the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil > debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) > > *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the > following principles:* > > *II – protecting privacy;* > > *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression > in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right > of access to the Internet.* > > *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to > application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, > private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly > involved.* > > *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be required > to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other > information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, > as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* > > * * > > *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be > communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the > standards set forth by regulation.* > > * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to > criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* > > I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at > Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or > contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded > that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil > creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. > > Thank you, > > Carol > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:18:51 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:18:51 +0300 Subject: [governance] more secrecy... Elizabeth Warren Free Trade Letter Calls For Trans-Pacific Partnership Transparency Message-ID: <51B9F0EB.7050104@gmail.com> [Intellectual property rights are being discussed in the TPP, the secrecy of the negotiations is causing lots of concern... government for the 1% by the 1%, a truth increaslingly self-evident?] Zach Carter Become a fan zach.carter at huffingtonpost.com Elizabeth Warren Free Trade Letter Calls For Trans-Pacific Partnership Transparency Posted: 06/13/2013 7:45 am EDT | Updated: 06/13/2013 11:08 am EDT WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on Thursday sent a letter to President Barack Obama's nominee to head U.S. trade negotiations, expressing concerns about the administration's lack of transparency in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a major trade deal being negotiated largely in secret. Labor unions, public health advocates and environmental groups have long decried so-called free trade policies for undermining important regulations in the pursuit of corporate profits. The letter signals that Warren's tough stance on bank regulation extends to other major consumer and public interest matters. What the public does know about the TPP has been learned through leaked documents . According to those documents, the Obama administration is seeking to grant corporations the ability to directly challenge regulations in countries involved in the talks -- a political power that was typically reserved for sovereign nations until the 1990s. Obama opposed such policies as a presidential candidate in 2008. The leaked intellectual property chapter of the deal includes provisions that would increase the costs of life-saving medicines in poor countries. Warren's letter does not take issue with specific terms of the negotiations, but rather the secrecy surrounding the process. Members of Congress have been allowed to see TPP negotiation texts. Some have said they were insulted by the complex administrative procedures the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, or USTR, imposed to actually access the texts -- barriers not imposed on unelected corporate advisers. Members of official "Trade Advisory Committees" stacked with corporate officials have been given access to the texts. But on June 6, Labor Advisory Committee Chairman R. Thomas Buffenbarger wrote a letter to acting U.S. Trade Representative Miriam Sapiro objecting to the "severe restrictions" that her agency had placed on information available to advocates for working people. In her letter, Warren asked current White House official Michael Froman, who Obama has nominated to be the next head of USTR, whether he would make a copy of the negotiation text available to the public. She also asked for a full accounting of all information that has been made available to each official advisory committee. The Obama administration has been negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership for several years, and Obama said at his 2013 State of the Union address that he hopes to have the deal approved by the end of the year. Read the full text of Warren's letter here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:24:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:24:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Ivar, I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a negative right, but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A positive right is a right that has been affirmed by statute, so in law or in a constitution of some kind, and opens the door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it gives us more control over our data. However, if you have a better language, you and any other person, should feel free to suggest. We still have time to improve. I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to consolidate suggestions and deliver to him. C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > Carolina, > > Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are > better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I > don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. > *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of privacy > as a negative right alone*. > That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe > all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in > the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the > Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. > Best regards, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with >> you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco >> Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian >> Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative >> Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so >> it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in >> other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. >> Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries >> due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been >> incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and >> the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil >> debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) >> >> *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the >> following principles:* >> >> *II – protecting privacy;* >> >> *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression >> in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right >> of access to the Internet.* >> >> *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to >> application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, >> private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly >> involved.* >> >> *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be required >> to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other >> information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, >> as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* >> >> * * >> >> *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be >> communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the >> standards set forth by regulation.* >> >> * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to >> criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* >> >> I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at >> Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or >> contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded >> that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil >> creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Carol >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 12:32:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:32:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] IGC Supports EFF Objection [For Immediate Release] In-Reply-To: References: <51B9AA91.3060905@ciroap.org> <20130613164834.4b5396bb@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613173730.18a48a5f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130613183218.7d610d20@quill.bollow.ch> Sala wrote: > This link works Norbert: > http://igcaucus.org/upload/IGC_Press_Release_on_Support_for_EFF_Objection_against_DRM_in_HTML5.pdf > > Even when you do a Hard Refresh > > The other link which does not have the text is different. But now all the links should be working reasonably, or is there still a problem? Greetings, Norbert > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > Curiously, the link to the pdf isn't showing up on > > > > > http://www.igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > > > while it is present on > > > > > http://igcaucus.org/igc-press-release-support-eff-objection-against-drm-html5 > > > > > > Looking into this... > > > > I'm still not sure what would have caused this (I haven't set up > > any of this) but we have a work-around now in the form of a > > redirect from www.igcaucus.org to igcaucus.org > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ivarhartmann at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:57:35 2013 From: ivarhartmann at gmail.com (Ivar A. M. Hartmann) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:57:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, I see. I didn't know of this this concept for the term 'positive right', especially if its opposite is 'negative right', as you mentioned. Positive right in this sense is very commonly understood as an entitlement that the state positively do something - a provision or service of some kind. It follows that social rights are thus positive rights. Again, I believe all rights have both dimensions (negative and positive) and fully support the view that there are positive actions the state must take to protect privacy, instead of merely foregoing to violate it. My only point is that the articles in the Marco Civil that you mentioned do not convey that idea. They *can* be read as dispositions that protect only a negative right to privacy. Best, Ivar On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Ivar, > > I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a negative right, > but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A positive right is a right that > has been affirmed by statute, so in law or in a constitution of some kind, > and opens the door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it > gives us more control over our data. > > However, if you have a better language, you and any other person, should > feel free to suggest. We still have time to improve. > > I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to consolidate > suggestions and deliver to him. > > C > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < > ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Carolina, >> >> Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are >> better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I >> don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. >> *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of privacy >> as a negative right alone*. >> That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe >> all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in >> the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the >> Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. >> Best regards, >> Ivar >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < >> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with >>> you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco >>> Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian >>> Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative >>> Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so >>> it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in >>> other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. >>> Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries >>> due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been >>> incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and >>> the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil >>> debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) >>> >>> *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the >>> following principles:* >>> >>> *II – protecting privacy;* >>> >>> *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of expression >>> in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right >>> of access to the Internet.* >>> >>> *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to >>> application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, >>> private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly >>> involved.* >>> >>> *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be >>> required to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other >>> information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, >>> as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* >>> >>> * * >>> >>> *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be >>> communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the >>> standards set forth by regulation.* >>> >>> * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to >>> criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* >>> >>> I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at >>> Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or >>> contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded >>> that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil >>> creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> Carol >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Carolina Rossini* >>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>> + 1 6176979389 >>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>> skype: carolrossini >>> @carolinarossini >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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 >>> >>> >> > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 12:58:25 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 12:58:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Kevin and Parminder, Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. Carol On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder wrote: > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct content > related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger than what most > suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements at > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak > > Of particular significance is this quote " "We hack network backbones -- > like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us access to the > communications of hundreds of thousands of computers without having to hack > every single one." (Snowdon is in an extremly precarious position, and > must be careful about what he says, and its veracity.) > > Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the servers of > Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that have been under > focus. We still do not know the processes and outcomes of these direct > network backbone hacking , and it may be contained in the numerous > documents that Snowdon shared and newspapers are still keeping from us. > > Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier email > that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with no court > order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even universties and > students were targetted. I have a feeling that under conditions requiring > no court orders, US intelligence guys simply went berserk over the > technical possibilities that they found at their hand, Every piece of > evidence points to this, and I would like to go by this presumption till > compelling eivdence to the contrary is shown. > > We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a judicial > pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough for making such a > statement. We are happy to be responded to by US authorities - who have > not bothered to utter one word about direct content surveillance of non US > citizens - that what we say is not true, and this and this is the proof of > that... > > I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly Gene's > amendments... > > Of course, happy to discuss this further. > > Parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: > > > I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. will > justify my comment in a short while... parminder > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of > > > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is seeking to add. > For what it's worth, here's a post that I and my colleague Emily wrote > yesterday on the same point, urging our domestic audience and policymakers > to pay more attention to the international/human rights implications, > entitled "It's not just about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights > Internationally": > > > https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally > > However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of the > various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and clear), because > of the Washington Post stepping back from some of its reporting, and > because of conflicting reports in other major news outlets like the New > York Times and Wired, we actually *do not know* how broad the data > collection being done via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually > is; in other words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It > very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; it may > also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the other conduct that's > been exposed--the disclosure of phone records--was in regard to calls made > to or from or inside the US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that > it would be preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually > *don't know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons > content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. Furthermore, no one > has said there was "no access obtained to content related to US citizens"; > they've simply said (which is BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in > reference to the PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest > editing Parminder's suggestion into something like... > > "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest > disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely on > assuring the American people that their privacy rights have been respected. > The right to privacy against overreaching government surveillance is a > human right. Human rights are universal, belonging to all people > regardless of nationality, and every government must refrain from violating > them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's > current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect this reality > and respect everyone's human rights." > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs wrote: > > +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its original > form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been violated, not sure we > should leave it up to the US government to decide whehter or not that has > indeed happened...). > > Thanks, > Anja > > > On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein wrote: > >> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when there is a >> "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day today so won't likely get to in >> until tonight (East coast Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto: >> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *Carolina Rossini >> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >> *To:* parminder >> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter >> to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >> >> >> >> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >> >> >> >> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >> >> >> >> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost >> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native >> english speaker take the lead on the final round. >> >> >> >> Carol >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >> wrote: >> >> >> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the >> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has not at >> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a >> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to >> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere...... >> >> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures' >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which is >> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on >> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an >> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain >> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The >> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take note of >> this. " >> >> >> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I >> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them >> separately, through a possible second statement. >> >> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite >> right. >> >> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of >> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the >> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.* [3] and >> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep >> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable." >> >> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the >> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's power, but >> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the >> other two sentences... >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from >> the beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US >> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my >> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at >> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do.... >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this >> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and others >> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel tomorrow >> is a better idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma wrote: >> >> Hi people >> >> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you >> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.. >> >> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will >> overshadow any other Internet news... >> >> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next >> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as well as >> some that have been made by Best Bits. >> >> Best of the day.. >> >> Nnenna >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >> wrote: >> >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Greetings everyone >> >> Content is coming along well. >> >> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until >> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it, >> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for >> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day >> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >> >> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get >> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only >> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the Americas. >> >> Will this work? >> >> Anriette >> >> >> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> - -- >> - ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >> =ssiT >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Carolina Rossini* >> >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> >> skype: carolrossini >> >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> > > > > -- > Dr. Anja Kovacs > The Internet Democracy Project > > +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs > www.internetdemocracy.in > > > > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 13:05:35 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:05:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I understand your point and that is why language and grammar actually matters in bill drafting (every verb and comma matters!). I will look carefully at the Portuguse version and talk to Molon and other folks about it. But I do think we have a good opportunity to ensure that the positive side is also established. A question to pose would also be if the Marco Civil has space to set norms to "protect" Brazilian citizens from overreaching acts of foreign agencies. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I see. I didn't know of this this concept for the term 'positive > right', especially if its opposite is 'negative right', as you mentioned. > Positive right in this sense is very commonly understood as an entitlement > that the state positively do something - a provision or service of some > kind. It follows that social rights are thus positive rights. > Again, I believe all rights have both dimensions (negative and positive) > and fully support the view that there are positive actions the state must > take to protect privacy, instead of merely foregoing to violate it. > My only point is that the articles in the Marco Civil that you mentioned > do not convey that idea. They *can* be read as dispositions that protect > only a negative right to privacy. > > Best, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Carolina Rossini < > carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear Ivar, >> >> I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a negative right, >> but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A positive right is a right that >> has been affirmed by statute, so in law or in a constitution of some kind, >> and opens the door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it >> gives us more control over our data. >> >> However, if you have a better language, you and any other person, should >> feel free to suggest. We still have time to improve. >> >> I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to consolidate >> suggestions and deliver to him. >> >> C >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann < >> ivarhartmann at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Carolina, >>> >>> Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of Marco Civil are >>> better evidence of a positive dimension of the right to privacy. But I >>> don't see how articles 3, 8 and 10 are an evidence of that. >>> *These dispositions are all compatible with the understanding of >>> privacy as a negative right alone*. >>> That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive dimension - I believe >>> all rights have, including free speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in >>> the US, however. A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the >>> Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. >>> Best regards, >>> Ivar >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini < >>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would like to share with >>>> you the current version of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco >>>> Civil) in english. This is not the same version available in the Brazilian >>>> Congress website, it is the final version put out by House Representative >>>> Molon (thus, newer). There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so >>>> it would be interesting to think if this is the time to ask the same in >>>> other countries. Below, articles 3, 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. >>>> Article 10 has been criticized by privacy advocates from other countries >>>> due to log retention, but I do feel it is something that has been >>>> incorporated in our culture, since been debated since 2000 in Brazil and >>>> the bill also requeres court order (even before we started the Marco Civil >>>> debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her views on this) >>>> >>>> *Article 3 The regulation of Internet use in Brazil underlies the >>>> following principles:* >>>> >>>> *II – protecting privacy;* >>>> >>>> *Article 8 Protection of the right to privacy and freedom of >>>> expression in communications is a prerequisite for the full enforcement of >>>> the right of access to the Internet.* >>>> >>>> *Article 10. Record retention of Internet connection and access to >>>> application logs, for the purposes of this Act, must protect the privacy, >>>> private life, honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly >>>> involved.* >>>> >>>> *§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention will only be >>>> required to provide the aforementioned logs, alone or combined with other >>>> information that may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court order, >>>> as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter.* >>>> >>>> * * >>>> >>>> *§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and procedures must be >>>> communicated by the connectivity services provider and clearly meet the >>>> standards set forth by regulation.* >>>> >>>> * § 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality right is subject to >>>> criminal, civil or administrative sanctions.* >>>> >>>> I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard (including at >>>> Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts or questions you want to ask him or >>>> contributions, please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we concluded >>>> that a letter of support, or words of support focused on how Marco Civil >>>> creates a positive right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. >>>> >>>> Thank you, >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 13 13:09:35 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:39:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> To further clarify. The main point in my addition which goes away with Kevin's amendment is the fact of making the distinction between the claimed meta data related surveillance of US citizens and direct access to actual content in case of PRISM operations that relate to non US residents... Inside the US, the discussion seem to keep conflating these two very different kinds and levels of incursions and therefore in my view a global civil society statement should make the distinction clear.... And of course I also insist to harp on the fact that while US authorities have made so many statements stressing that the content related to US citizens was never accessed, they havent said a word about having made such infringements vis a vis non US citizens. I think that non US citizens have a right to stress this point . Happy to hear Kevin on this .. However I may very soon be going offline, parminder On Thursday 13 June 2013 10:28 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Dear Kevin and Parminder, > > Do you think there is any specific contribution to the letter you can > make based on the debate below? I just want to be sure we are > channeling this energy in the lists to the word that will become public. > > Btw, I have already incorporated Parminder's earlier contributions. > > Carol > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, parminder > wrote: > > > Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of direct > content related info on non US citizens was in fact much larger > than what most suspect at present. See Snowdon's latest statements > at http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/12/politics/nsa-leak > > Of particular significance is this quote ""We hack network > backbones -- like huge Internet routers, basically -- that give us > access to the communications of hundreds of thousands of computers > without having to hack every single one." (Snowdon is in an > extremly precarious position, and must be careful about what he > says, and its veracity.) > > Now, network backbone hacking seems to go beyond accessing the > servers of Microsoft, Google, Fscebook and 6 other companies that > have been under focus. We still do not know the processes and > outcomes of these direct network backbone hacking , and it may be > contained in the numerous documents that Snowdon shared and > newspapers are still keeping from us. > > Also worrying for me is your reference to FISA text in an earlier > email that "outside US to outside US" content could be hacked with > no court order. Snowdon further says in the above piece that even > universties and students were targetted. I have a feeling that > under conditions requiring no court orders, US intelligence guys > simply went berserk over the technical possibilities that they > found at their hand, Every piece of evidence points to this, and I > would like to go by this presumption till compelling eivdence to > the contrary is shown. > > We are making a civil society statement, we are not making a > judicial pronouncement. The evidence we got at present is enough > for making such a statement. We are happy to be responded to by US > authorities - who have not bothered to utter one word about > direct content surveillance of non US citizens - that what we say > is not true, and this and this is the proof of that... > > I would like to keep the text I suggested in, with possibly > Gene's amendments... > > Of course, happy to discuss this further. > > Parminder > > On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:44 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> I am happy to accept Gene's amendment, but Kevin's goes too far. >> will justify my comment in a short while... parminder >> >> Kevin, If you ask me, I believe that the collection of >> >> >> >> On Thursday 13 June 2013 09:34 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: >>> I strongly support the general sentiment that Parminder is >>> seeking to add. For what it's worth, here's a post that I and >>> my colleague Emily wrote yesterday on the same point, urging our >>> domestic audience and policymakers to pay more attention to the >>> international/human rights implications, entitled "It's not just >>> about US: How the NSA Threatens Human Rights Internationally": >>> >>> https://www.cdt.org/blogs/1206it%E2%80%99s-not-just-about-us-how-nsa-threatens-human-rights-internationally >>> >>> However, I think it's worth noting at this point that because of >>> the various company denials (some of them quite strenuous and >>> clear), because of the Washington Post stepping back from some >>> of its reporting, and because of conflicting reports in other >>> major news outlets like the New York Times and Wired, we >>> actually *do not know* how broad the data collection being done >>> via "PRISM" under the FISA Amendments Act actually is; in other >>> words, we have no idea whether or how proportionate it is. It >>> very well might be incredibly broad, which is certainly my fear; >>> it may also be more targeted than we suspect. Meanwhile, the >>> other conduct that's been exposed--the disclosure of phone >>> records--was in regard to calls made to or from or inside the >>> US. So, for that reason, I agree with Gene that it would be >>> preferable that we have a little wiggle room--we actually *don't >>> know* that there has been "large scale" access to non-US persons >>> content at this point, even if we strongly suspect it. >>> Furthermore, no one has said there was "no access obtained to >>> content related to US citizens"; they've simply said (which is >>> BS) "no one's listening to your calls", in reference to the >>> PATRIOT 215 order for phone records. So, I'd suggest editing >>> Parminder's suggestion into something like... >>> >>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in the wake of the latest >>> disclosures, statements by the US government have focused solely >>> on assuring the American people that their privacy rights have >>> been respected. The right to privacy against overreaching >>> government surveillance is a human right. Human rights are >>> universal, belonging to all people regardless of nationality, >>> and every government must refrain from violating them for all >>> people, and not merely for its citizens. The US government's >>> current and future surveillance law and practice must reflect >>> this reality and respect everyone's human rights." >>> ____________________________________ >>> Kevin S. Bankston >>> Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director >>> Center for Democracy & Technology >>> 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 >>> Washington, DC 20006 >>> 202.407.8834 direct >>> 202.637.0968 fax >>> kbankston at cdt.org >>> >>> Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech >>> >>> On Jun 13, 2013, at 11:16 AM, Anja Kovacs >>> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 on Parminder's additional suggested paragraph, though in its >>>> original form (certainly many of us feel our rights have been >>>> violated, not sure we should leave it up to the US government >>>> to decide whehter or not that has indeed happened...). >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Anja >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 20:02, michael gurstein >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> I can take a look for style and grammar… Just alert me when >>>> there is a "finalized" text… I'm out and about all day >>>> today so won't likely get to in until tonight (East coast >>>> Canada time) or tomorrow morning. >>>> >>>> M >>>> >>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ] *On Behalf Of >>>> *Carolina Rossini >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:16 AM >>>> *To:* parminder >>>> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] Delivery of International civil >>>> society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement >>>> >>>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens. >>>> >>>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday. >>>> >>>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of >>>> it was lost during the editing process. I can try, but it >>>> would be better if a native english speaker take the lead >>>> on the final round. >>>> >>>> Carol >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain >>>> concerned about the fact that the issue of non citizens >>>> related content surveillance has not at all been addressed >>>> by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a word >>>> on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the >>>> group to consider adding the following paragraph >>>> somewhere...... >>>> >>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post >>>> 'disclosures' statements, US authorities have only insisted >>>> that there was no access obtained to content related to /US >>>> citizens/, and just their communication meta-data was >>>> collected. There has not been a word on the issue of >>>> large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>> which is a violation of their human rights. The focussing >>>> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment >>>> of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which >>>> essentially relates to violation of human rights is very >>>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every >>>> government must refrain from violating them for all people, >>>> and not merely for its citizens. The current and future US >>>> law and practices on this matter should take note of this. " >>>> >>>> >>>> I still have issues with the role of the involved >>>> companies, which I will address in a separate email. I am >>>> fine though to address them separately, through a possible >>>> second statement. >>>> >>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow >>>> looks not quite right. >>>> >>>> "The introduction ofuntargeted surveillance mechanisms at >>>> the heart of global digital communications severely >>>> threatens human rights in the digital age. */These new >>>> forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in >>>> the structure of information systems in modern societies./* >>>> [3] and aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized >>>> through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference >>>> with the human rights of citizens by any government, their >>>> own or foreign, is unacceptable." >>>> >>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised >>>> power'? From the reference I take it, it is about 'arab >>>> spring' kind of people's power, but that doesnt look clear >>>> from the way the sentence is wedged between the other two >>>> sentences... >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>>> >>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we >>>> had agreed from the beginning that the focus of this >>>> particular statement would be the US Congress, I feel >>>> (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground >>>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was >>>> meant to do in my reading as well). Parminder, do you >>>> really feel that doesn't come out at all? In that case, >>>> we do have some more work to do.... >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we >>>> should release this tomorrow already? My inclination >>>> would be to agree with Nnenna and others and to wait >>>> until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel >>>> tomorrow is a better idea. >>>> >>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi people >>>> >>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the >>>> week with it, you will have ample time to rave up media >>>> attention on it.. >>>> >>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. >>>> because that will overshadow any other Internet news... >>>> >>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit >>>> in Lusaka next week. I do hope to be able to draw >>>> attention to the statement, as well as some that have >>>> been made by Best Bits. >>>> >>>> Best of the day.. >>>> >>>> Nnenna >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen >>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>> >>>> Greetings everyone >>>> >>>> Content is coming along well. >>>> >>>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving >>>> people until >>>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the >>>> text, finalise it, >>>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 >>>> GMT/UTC Friday for >>>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of >>>> the business day >>>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC). >>>> >>>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still >>>> enable us to get >>>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on >>>> Friday. Only >>>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons >>>> will be the Americas. >>>> >>>> Will this work? >>>> >>>> Anriette >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> - -- >>>> - ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>>> >>>> executive director, association for progressive >>>> communications >>>> www.apc.org >>>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>>> south africa >>>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) >>>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - >>>> http://www.enigmail.net/ >>>> >>>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRuYgcAAoJEJ0z+TtuxKew024H/RGq5qboWUylw9fs7Mg0mgZy >>>> B8nQxTMzLoTlwpV34ODm4aGy43elL3HDiTV1sqd6npOygUi9D0LWOIVC9R+JXtfR >>>> pckH4i7p23UQCbyTxdfn6pcqV6vnxAkev/2UjbR0sFrb3yBt8YQr/vrYKjnWYPgn >>>> u0rGffZ+UVKEBzuNQn57VBpYKe1KQeETCrv52eVfSR3gB3vzpYtvzfUnBHY7KzZ6 >>>> GrEf5dzk36zcIHyPHqfCl2DpcCzI5HgyzQuFKxGEzA+YKQj6ISFJFhQ1Z5JAdmxN >>>> LQryTnfqihzYmhuKpApJr/PAvSd4PMcwMoSSLIMbNb77H7ewP6IopVKiFFM4iAA= >>>> =ssiT >>>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> *Carolina Rossini* >>>> >>>> http://carolinarossini.net/ >>>> >>>> + 1 6176979389 >>>> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com >>>> * >>>> >>>> skype: carolrossini >>>> >>>> @carolinarossini >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>>> The Internet Democracy Project >>>> >>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >> > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 13:32:40 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:32:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not > "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity > for the purchase validation process? I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database. For example, I have literature which is of a kind that (in some totalitarian states) people have been literally persecuted and killed for having. This kind of potential risk is not only in regard to human rights violations by states. What if some kind of terrorist organization delares a “jihad” against all who read a certain book or watch a certain video? I think that this is a relevant concern in regard to DRM, even if it not one that I have been addressing in my recent posting. There I was talking about protecting one's privacy in regard to communications etc by means of using a Free Software operating system platform, and about the potential dilemma that could easily arise if DRM'd content becomes increasingly important (from the user's perspective) but because of the DRM it is not accessible using a Free Software operating system platform. > Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that > work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example > this list here: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems)... > In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for > DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using > an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be > able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using > freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player). The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player: A “content decryption module” (CDM). In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the CDMs is seeking to achieve.) Roland Perry wrote: > It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen" > (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted > concept of "freedom of speech". > > Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to > run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't > play the game? That's not the type of situation that I'm protesting against. Suppose someone has an X-box (with some games) and a PC with Microsoft Windows as OS. Two separate physical machines which connect to the Internet using the same IP address (via a NAT box). The person then replaces Microsoft Windows on the PC with a different OS which the user believe has better privacy protection properties. If that action has the consequence that the X-box gets remotely disabled, making all the games on the X-box unplayable on the X-box, then I'd say that that situation is analogous to DRM's cultural goods which are accessible only on some “mainstream” operating system platforms but not on user modifiable operating system platforms. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 13:55:20 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 19:55:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy Message-ID: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] The IGC Charter contains the following mission statement: The mission of the Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) is to provide a forum for discussion, advocacy, action, and for representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes. The caucus intends to provide an open and effective forum for civil society to share opinion, policy options and expertise on Internet governance issues, and to provide a mechanism for coordination of advocacy to enhance the utilization and influence of Civil Society (CS) and the IGC in relevant policy processes. The “forum for discussion” aspect of the IGC has always been strong, even the situation had deteriorated over time with hostility against certain viewpoints etc. In my view, there has been a good trend of improvement recently in this regard. (I'm not so optimistic to assume that there won't be any further relapses, but IMO overall the situation has been improving.) The next focus area for IGC improvement should be in regard to providing a viable forum for advocacy and action. Besides the benefits of this in itself, this will also improve GC's ability to be taken serious in regard to “representation of civil society contributions in Internet governance processes”. In the understanding of Sala and myself, the term “forum for advocacy and action” is not limited to the (relatively rare) situations where, despite the great diversity among Caucus members, consensus is reached on a substantive issue. Without giving up on the goal of trying to reach consensus or at least rough consensus whenever possible, we wish to enhance IGC's role as a forum for sharing and developing advocacy statements aimed at promoting global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. In particular, the aspect of IGC's mission of providing a “forum for advocacy and action” needs to support these activities also in situations where there is lack of full agreement on what constitutes the relevant global public interest objectives. We think that in order for allowing IGC to fulfill this aspect of its mission statement, some improvements to the technical infrastructure are needed. In particular, we think that it would be good to have an automated or semi-automated way (requiring only minimal or no specific coordinator intervention for setting things up) in which any IGC member can set up a workspace for developing a statement (the current idea is to offer a choice of two options, etherpad and MediaWiki - actually etherpad is available on http://igcaucus.org:9001 already, we haven't been using it much yet though) and a dedicated mailing list for any statement development project. This could be used as follows: When any IGC member wishes to take the initiative towards the development of an advocacy statements, the first step might be to post on the IGC list expressing the general viewpoint and content of the desired statement. Such postings which are intended to lead to the development of a statement may be marked in the Subject: line with "{S}". Likely other IGC members will quickly express agreement or disagreement, and it will probably be clear soon whether the proposal has a chance to reach consensus or rough consensus in IGC. The proponent could then establish an workspace (etherpad or MediaWiki) for informal initial editing, and (depending on his or her own assessment of the chances of consensus or rough consensus in IGC) either a mailing list specific to that statement project, or the main IGC list could be used for discussing that statement project. If a dedicated mailing list is created, it would be restricted to postings that move that particular statement project forward. Of course, statements that have not successfully gone through the IGC consensus process or rough concensus process are not “IGC statements”. On the IGC website, we'd have two categories of statements. Formal IGC statements would be listed first, followed by “Other civil society statements”. The list of links to statements under the “Other civil society statements” heading could include links to statements developed elsewhere, e.g. by the BestBits group, along with statements that were developed using the infrastructure provided by IGC. For all statements developed and published on the IGC website, we think that it would be good to provide automated "Sign on to this statement" functionality. There are two major issues with this kind of plan: a) Critical mass of subscribers on per-project mailing lists. This can be addressed by having a group of people who generally volunteer to participate constructively in statement-drafting processes, and who will always be added automatically to every new per-project mailing list that is created. b) Inviting civil society persons with particular expertise and/or interest in regard to any of the statement projects. It is very important to establish processes through which civil society people are informed about statement drafting processes in their areas of interest before those statements are finalized, and invited to participate if they wish to do so. This cannot be automated, it will need a conscious effort of many Caucus members including the coordinators to do a good job at this. This is work. According to the Charter we as a Caucus (this is not just a task for the coordinators) should be doing this work anyway, though - see the list of “Objectives and Tasks” immediately after the mission statement in the IGC Charter. Here are some further ideas for technical improvements: * Set up a dedicated announcements mailing list where announcements about draftement drafting projects will be posted. * Besides statements, also provide IGC members with a way to get other “actions” (aimed at promoting global public interest objectives in regard to the Internet), for example FOSS development projects that are aimed at achieving policy objectives, linked from the igcacus.org homepage. * Fix the LDAP problem which currently prevents some users from resetting their passwords and accessing their IGC account. (This is not currently a big issue, since currently most people never have any need to accessing their IGC account, but with the above-mentioned plan it will be important to fix this.) * Provide each Caucus participant with a bit of personal wikispace. * Fix the mailing list archives, removing the hindering "I am not a spammer" confirmation so that: 1) specific posts can be linked so that the link works directly, i.e. without the page-back-and- reload trick; 2) the archives can be index by search engines. For protection of email addresses from spammer's bots, the email addresses will be replaced by links to the participant's personal wiki homepage, which will by default contain some kind of “I am not a spammer” confirmation protecting the email address. (Benefit to “link popularity” conscious IGC participants: When good postings on the mailing list get linked to, that will increase the link popularity rating of the personal IGC wiki homepage, which in turn can be used by means adding links on that wikipage to whatever webpage(s) that you want to advertise.) * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list posting already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it easy to twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for the IGC: #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) * Index those postings in the mailing list achives that have significant substantive content according to discussion topics. Integrate this with the igcaucus.org Map of Internet Governance by linking from the topic pages on the Map of Internet Governance to the relevant archived IGC mailing list postings, and conversely also link from the archive pages to the corresponding topic page. * Database of Internet governance acronyms and technical terms, and use that to automatically append acronym expansions / brief explanations (with more in-depth links to the Map of Internet Governance) for each acronym or technical term that is used in the posting, to all postings on the governance mailing list. * Automated generation of a graph showing the number of unique IP addresses visiting the igcaucus.org homepage on any given day. (Hopefully there will be an upwards trend soon, which would indicate am increase in that the number of people who consider the igcaucus.org homepage to be a useful resource.) * Fix the bug in our Drupal setup which caused the recent problem with visibility of the link to the pdf attachment containing the press release. What is the advice of the IGC members in regard to all the above ideas? Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 15:50:32 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:50:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement Message-ID: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] There's ongoing work to create an international civil society letter to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for these discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits The draft statement is at: http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a statement with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - you're not actually supposed to put your name there.) The planned timeline is: 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with final clean up 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal consensus call. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lorna.tingu at yahoo.co.uk Thu Jun 13 16:09:25 2013 From: lorna.tingu at yahoo.co.uk (Lorna simiyu) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 21:09:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] fw: hi Message-ID: <1371154165.48452.YahooMailNeo@web171302.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> http://indoorsafaripark.com/uv/erpjdvc/kxnrspbc/anli/att.butle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 13 16:30:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 22:30:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] NomCom for the Appeals Team: Non-voting chair In-Reply-To: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130523010334.0efb7f78@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130613223006.54390754@quill.bollow.ch> [IGC Coordinator hat on] Dear all The appointment of the Non-Voting Chair for the NomCom for the Appeals Team has unfortunately taken longer than we had hoped, but this is done now: Tracey Naughton is the Non-Voting Chairperson. The randomly selected voting members of this NomCom are: Carlos Vera Quintana, José Francisco Callo Romero, Izumi Aizu, Wilson Abigaba, Rudi Vansnick. The reserves are Deirdre Williams and Jeremy Malcolm. A dedicated mailing list for this NomCom has been set up at I expect that the NomCom will in due course announce how persons willing to serve on the Appeals Team can express their willingness, and whether supporting documentation should be submitted to the NomCom. (I'd expect the specification of the supporting documentation to depend on the NomCom's choice of selection criteria, so let's not be too impatient in regard to that announcement.) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 16:35:15 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 16:35:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <8F17250E-E1F1-4A09-A128-BBA9B1FFC14C@gmail.com> I support IGC signing on Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > There's ongoing work to create an international civil society letter to > US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. > > The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for these > discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > The draft statement is at: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a statement > with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - you're not actually > supposed to put your name there.) > > The planned timeline is: > > 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with > final clean up > 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) > 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website > Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) > > Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? > > If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several > expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal consensus > call. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 18:00:18 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:00:18 +0300 Subject: [governance] Blarney... it just keeps on coming... Message-ID: <51BA40F2.9050506@gmail.com> [And concerns about corporates (who get 70% of theintelligence community spend from govt) in multistakeholder processes is not a problem? After this will we be allowed to have a reasoned discussion on this "soft facism"...?] The Massive Online Surveillance Program No One Is Talking About By Andrea Peterson on Jun 10, 2013 at 8:25 pm Slide referencing BLARNEY as an upstream data collection option (Credit: The Guardian) Much of the initial coverage of last week's leaks about the National Security Agency (NSA) online snooping focused on a content gathering program called PRISM. But buried in the Washington Post's original coverage were a few tantalizing details about another program code-named BLARNEY that bears a striking resemblance to the one alleged in a prominent court case over the existence of a dragnet online surveillance program. The details of the BLARNEY program revealed so far appear to closely match the testimony and documents of former AT&T employee and whistleblower Mark Klein. Klein worked at AT&T for twenty-two years, retiring in 2004. During that time, he has testified he witnessed the installation of a fiber-optic splitting device in the San Francisco office where he worked, with a copy of all data being diverted to a room controlled by the NSA. In that room was "powerful computer equipment connecting to separate networks" and with the capability to "analyze communications at high speed." As part of his testimony, he also provided AT&T documents that included diagrams of the splitter technology used. In a conversation with ThinkProgress, Cindy Cohn, Legal Director with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) which is litigating the /Jewel v. NSA/ case, agreed BLARNEY "appears to be what we've been saying, and what Mark Klein's evidence shows." According the Washington Post , BLARNEY gathers up metadata from choke points along the backbone of the Internet as part of "an ongoing collection program that leverages IC [intelligence community] and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks." A slide later revealed by The Guardian lists the program as an upstream option for data collection, which relies on sucking up information "on fiber cables and infrastructure as it flows past." From those descriptions, it sounds somewhat analogous to an internet version of the broad telephone metadata collection authorized in the Verizon order revealed last week, which some electronic privacy advocates believes oversteps the authority of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) courts. Klein's testimony and documents form the basis of the ongoing /Jewel v. NSA/ court case originally filed in 2008, which alleges "an illegal and unconstitutional program of dragnet communications surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency (the 'N.S.A.') and other defendants in concert with major telecommunications companies." A similar case against the telecommunications company, Hepting v. AT&T , was dismissed following the passage of retroactive immunity for telecom companies in the 2008 renewal of the FISA. Three former NSA intelligence analysts, William E. Binney, Thomas A. Drake and J. Kirk Wiebe have also backed the /Jewel/ case , saying the NSA either has, or is in the process of obtaining, the ability to seize and store most electronic communications passing through its U.S. intercept centers like "secret room" described by Klein. The Obama administration moved to dismiss the /Jewel /case in 2009, invoking the "state secrets" privilege and saying that it was immune from the suit. It was instead dismissed on standing grounds, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it could proceed to district court in December 2011. In September 2012 the government again renewed it's state secret argument. Last Friday the government responded to the NSA leaks by requesting delay on any decisions on pending motions until it can file a new status report taking newly public information into account. June 13, 2013 Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on google More Sharing Services 23 In Search of Real Liberty The NSA and the Infrastructure of the Surveillance State by ERIC DRAITSER It has long been known that cyberspace is one of the main battlegrounds in the 21^st century. However, last week's shocking revelations about the NSA's surveillance and data-gathering activities illustrate the extent to which US intelligence seeks "full-spectrum dominance" in cyberspace. Although there have been myriad articles in recent days about the various aspects of the NSA surveillance story, none seem to focus on the fact that US intelligence effectively has access to all data transmitted, not just that on Verizon or Google servers. Essentially, the intelligence community -- a convenient euphemism for that complex that includes private contractors and government agencies -- acts much like a filter, sifting and straining all information through its various systems. However, it is important to realize that the system that the government has established is an all-encompassing one, including access to data in company servers in addition to access to the cable and fiber-optic infrastructure that actually transmits the data. On the one hand, there is the PRISM system which, as the Washington Post reported , allows "The National Security Agency and the FBI [to tap] directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, emails, documents, and connection logs." Aside from being a blatant violation of the 4^th Amendment of the US Constitution, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and countless other international standards, the program has been vigorously defended by Obama Administration officials who, like their predecessors in the Bush Administration, invoke the always convenient "National Security" trump card to justify their illegal actions. The PRISM system should be understood as a collusion between the NSA and major internet companies against the interests of ordinary Americans. Because the PRISM system is justified as being used solely to "target and track foreign targets," somehow American citizens are supposed to feel at ease. It is important to note that PRISM makes use of obviously illegal tactics which "circumvent formal legal processes...to seek personal material such as emails, photos and videos." This is the crux of the PRISM aspect of this scandal: it is blatantly illegal. If PRISM were the only system being used by the government agencies, then the story would not be nearly as frightening as it is. Instead, we must also examine the so-called BLARNEY system which "Gathers up metadata from choke points along the backbone of the internet as part of an ongoing collection program the leverages IC (intelligence community) and commercial partnerships to gain access and exploit foreign intelligence obtained from global networks." This system allows the NSA (and likely other government agencies) to control the flow of all information transmitted via fiber-optic cables. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote in its summary of the testimonies of former AT&T technician Mark Klein and former Senior Advisor for Internet Technology at the FCC Scott Marcus, "Using a device called a 'splitter' a complete copy of the internet traffic that AT&T receives...is diverted onto a separate fiber-optic cable which is connected to a room which is controlled by the NSA." Therefore, unlike PRISM, which the government and its apologists attempt to justify as being used to target key individuals, BLARNEY has no such capacity. Rather, it is designed solely to collect data, all internet data, to be used and likely stored. Naturally, the revelations about the BLARNEY system shed light on the possible motivations of the NSA for the construction of enormous data storage facilities such as the Utah Data Center in Bluffdale, Utah. As reported in Wired magazine: But "this is more than just a data center," says one senior intelligence official who until recently was involved with the program. The mammoth Bluffdale center will have another important and far more secret role that until now has gone unrevealed... According to another top official also involved with the program, the NSA made an enormous breakthrough several years ago in its ability to cryptanalyze, or break, unfathomably complex encryption systems employed by not only governments around the world but also many average computer users in the US. The upshot, according to this official: "Everybody's a target; everybody with communication is a target." This facility, along with others that likely exist but remain secret, is an integral part of the surveillance state system. It is not enough to simply capture all the communications data, it must be stored and readily available. What the NSA primarily, and other agencies secondarily, are doing is developing a cyber-infrastructure that both incorporates, and is independent of, internet companies and service providers. While relying on corporations' for access to data and networks, the NSA simultaneously has developed a parallel structure for information gathering and storage that is not only outside the control of private companies, it is outside the law. Of course, there are many political and economic factors that play into this issue. The legal framework developed in the post-9/11 era including draconian legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and many others, laid the foundation for the systemic and systematic stripping away of civil liberties and human rights. The technical infrastructure has been steadily evolving since 9/11 as technology continues to improve, providing the intelligence agencies with ever more tools for surveillance and intelligence gathering. The continued, unrestrained neoliberal policy of privatization has created a complex network of companies, contractors, and subcontractors, usually working independently of each other, all in the service of the security state. Finally, the political landscape in the United States has so thoroughly devolved that elected officials are more concerned about stopping the whistleblowers and leakers, than about addressing America's continued descent into a fascist police state. Despite all of this, Americans continue to be told that this is the "sweet land of liberty". We may be able to buy Nike sneakers and flat screen TVs, but that's not liberty. We may be able to tweet with our iPhones and download our favorite movies, but that's not liberty either. Rather, as George Orwell famously wrote, "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." So yes, tell the people what they don't want to hear. Just know this...someone will be listening. /*Eric Draitser* is the founder of StopImperialism.com . He is an independent geopolitical analyst based in New York City. You can reach him at ericdraitser at gmail.com./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: new-prism-slide-0011-300x225.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 28269 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: printer.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1035 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Thu Jun 13 18:03:28 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:03:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning (- or the death of Nuremburg principles...) In-Reply-To: <51B85C2F.8030105@gmail.com> References: <51B85C2F.8030105@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51BA41B0.9090808@gmail.com> [this is how the USG treats war crimes whistleblowers... kept naked to prevent his Swartzing... perhaps make lesson that everyone else will remember... ] Chris Hedges' Columns The Judicial Lynching of Bradley Manning Email this item Email Print this item Print Share this item... Share Share on reddit Posted on Jun 9, 2013 AP/Patrick Semansky Army Pfc. Bradley Manning is escorted out of a courthouse at Fort Meade, Md., on Wednesday after the third day of his court-martial. By Chris Hedges FORT MEADE, Md.---The military trial of Bradley Manning is a judicial lynching. The government has effectively muzzled the defense team. The Army private first class is not permitted to argue that he had a moral and legal obligation under international law to make public the war crimes he uncovered. The documents that detail the crimes, torture and killing Manning revealed, because they are classified, have been barred from discussion in court, effectively removing the fundamental issue of war crimes from the trial. Manning is forbidden by the court to challenge the government's unverified assertion that he harmed national security. Lead defense attorney David E. Coombs said during pretrial proceedings that the judge's refusal to permit information on the lack of actual damage from the leaks would "eliminate a viable defense, and cut defense off at the knees." And this is what has happened . Manning is also barred from presenting to the court his motives for giving the website WikiLeaks hundreds of thousands of classified diplomatic cables, war logs from Afghanistan and Iraq, and videos. The issues of his motives and potentially harming national security can be raised only at the time of sentencing, but by then it will be too late. The draconian trial restrictions, familiar to many Muslim Americans tried in the so-called war on terror, presage a future of show trials and blind obedience. Our email and phone records , it is now confirmed, are swept up and stored in perpetuity on government computers. Those who attempt to disclose government crimes can be easily traced and prosecuted under the Espionage Act . Whistle-blowers have no privacy and no legal protection. This is why Edward Snowden---a former CIA technical assistant who worked for a defense contractor with ties to the National Security Agency and who leaked to Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian the information about the National Security Council's top-secret program to collect Americans' cellphone metadata, e-mail and other personal data---has fled the United States. The First Amendment is dead. There is no legal mechanism left to challenge the crimes of the power elite. We are bound and shackled. And those individuals who dare to resist face the prospect, if they remain in the country, of joining Manning in prison, perhaps the last refuge for the honest and the brave. Read Chris Hedges' Dig about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning here . Coombs opened the trial last week by pleading with the judge, Army Col. Denise Lind , for leniency based on Manning's youth and sincerity. Coombs is permitted by Lind to present only circumstantial evidence concerning Manning's motives or state of mind. He can argue, for example, that Manning did not know al-Qaida might see the information he leaked. Coombs is also permitted to argue, as he did last week, that Manning was selective in his leak, intending no harm to national interests. But these are minor concessions by the court to the defense. Manning's most impassioned pleas for freedom of information, especially regarding email exchanges with the confidential government informant Adrian Lamo , as well as his right under international law to defy military orders in exposing war crimes, are barred as evidence. Manning is unable to appeal to the Nuremberg principles, a set of guidelines created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations after World War II to determine what constitutes a war crime. The principles make political leaders, commanders and combatants responsible for war crimes, even if domestic or internal laws allow such actions. The Nuremberg principles are designed to protect those, like Manning, who expose these crimes. Orders do not, under the Nuremberg principles, offer an excuse for committing war crimes. And the Nuremberg laws would clearly condemn the pilots in the "Collateral Murder" video and their commanders and exonerate Manning. But this is an argument we will not be allowed to hear in the Manning trial. Manning has admitted to 10 lesser offenses surrounding his leaking of classified and unclassified military and State Department files, documents and videos, including the "Collateral Murder" video, which shows a U.S. Apache attack helicopter in 2007 killing 12 civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and wounding two children on an Iraqi street. His current plea exposes him to penalties that could see him locked away for two decades. But for the government that is not enough. Military prosecutors are pursuing all 22 charges against him. These charges include aiding the enemy, wanton publication, espionage, stealing U.S. government property, exceeding authorized access and failures to obey lawful general orders---charges that can bring with them 149 years plus life. "He knew that the video depicted a 2007 attack," Coombs said of the "Collateral Murder" recording. "He knew that it [the attack] resulted in the death of two journalists. And because it resulted in the death of two journalists it had received worldwide attention. He knew that the organization Reuters had requested a copy of the video in FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] because it was their two journalists that were killed, and they wanted to have that copy in order to find out what had happened and to ensure that it didn't happen again. He knew that the United States had responded to that FOIA request almost two years later indicating what they could find and, notably, not the video. "He knew that David Finkel, an author, had written a book called 'The Good Soldiers,' and when he read through David Finkel's account and he talked about this incident that's depicted in the video, he saw that David Finkel's account and the actual video were verbatim, that David Finkel was quoting the Apache air crew. And so at that point he knew that David Finkel had a copy of the video. And when he decided to release this information, he believed that this information showed how [little] we valued human life in Iraq. He was troubled by that. And he believed that if the American public saw it, they too would be troubled and maybe things would change." "He was 22 years old," Coombs said last Monday as he stood near the bench, speaking softly to the judge at the close of his opening statement. "He was young. He was a little naive in believing that the information that he selected could actually make a difference. But he was good-intentioned in that he was selecting information that he hoped would make a difference." "He wasn't selecting information because it was wanted by WikiLeaks," Coombs concluded. "He wasn't selecting information because of some 2009 most wanted list. He was selecting information because he believed that this information needed to be public. At the time that he released the information he was concentrating on what the American public would think about that information, not whether or not the enemy would get access to it, and he had absolutely no actual knowledge of whether the enemy would gain access to it. Young, naive, but good-intentioned." The moral order is inverted. The criminal class is in power. We are the prey. Manning, in a just society, would be a prosecution witness against war criminals. Those who committed these crimes should be facing prison. But we do not live in a just society. The Afghans, the Iraqis, the Yemenis, the Pakistanis and the Somalis know what American military forces do. They do not need to read WikiLeaks. They have seen the bodies, including the bodies of their children, left behind by drone strikes and other attacks from the air. They have buried the corpses of those gunned down by coalition forces. With fury, they hear our government tell lies, accounts that are discredited by the reality they endure. Our wanton violence and hypocrisy make us hated and despised, fueling the rage of jihadists and amassing legions of new enemies against the United States. Manning, by providing a window into the truth, opened up the possibility of redemption. He offered hope for a new relationship with the Muslim world, one based on compassion and honesty, on the rule of law, rather than the cold brutality of industrial warfare. But by refusing to heed the truth that Manning laid before us, by ignoring the crimes committed daily in our name, we not only continue to swell the ranks of our enemies but put the lives of our citizens in greater and greater danger. Manning did not endanger us. He sought to thwart the peril that is daily exacerbated by our political and military elite. *Advertisement* Manning showed us through the documents he released that Iraqis have endured hundreds of rapes and murders, along with systematic torture by the military and police of the puppet government we installed. He let us know that none of these atrocities were investigated. He provided the data that showed us that between 2004 and 2009 there were at least 109,032 "violent deaths" in Iraq, including those of 66,081 civilians, and that coalition troops were responsible for at least 195 civilian deaths in unreported events. He allowed us to see in the video "Collateral Murder" the helicopter attack on unarmed civilians in Baghdad. It was because of Manning that we could listen to the callous banter between pilots as the Americans nonchalantly fired on civilian rescuers. Manning let us see a U.S. Army tank crush one of the wounded lying on the street after the helicopter attack. The actions of the U.S. military in this one video alone, as law professor Marjorie Cohn has pointed out, violate Article 85 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits the targeting of civilians, Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which requires that wounded be treated, and Article 17 of the First Protocol, which permits civilians to rescue and care for wounded without being harmed. We know of this war crime and many others because of Manning. And the decision to punish the soldier who reported these war crimes rather than the soldiers responsible for these crimes mocks our pretense of being a nation ruled by law. "I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this, it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general as it applied to Iraq and Afghanistan," Manning said Feb. 28 when he pleaded guilty to the lesser charges. He said he hoped the release of the information to WikiLeaks "might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counterterrorism while ignoring the situation of the people we engaged with every day." But it has not. Our mechanical drones still circle the skies delivering death. Our attack jets still blast civilians. Our soldiers and Marines still pump bullets into mud-walled villages. Our artillery and missiles still raze homes. Our torturers still torture. Our politicians and generals still lie. And the man who tried to stop it all is still in prison. /Read Chris Hedges' Dig about Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning here ./ /Trial transcripts used for this report came from the nonprofit Freedom of the Press Foundation , which, because the government refused to make transcripts publicly available, is raising money to have its own stenographer at the trial. Transcripts from the pretrial hearing came from journalist Alexa O'Brien./ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 69 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 70 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 834 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 25985 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:38:42 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:38:42 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> Message-ID: <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:46:25 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:46:25 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> Message-ID: <13F57AF3-C0D6-49FC-A04A-C46E1ABC7B15@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 7:41 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? It seemed like the balance of views was towards releasing on Monday rather than Friday, so if we aim for Monday morning US, that would be 1pm GMT on Monday. I, for one, will aim to synchronise the release of a media article for Monday. So let's release then, yes? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Jun 13 19:58:08 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:58:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From joana at varonferraz.com Thu Jun 13 20:00:07 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 01:00:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: Excellent work, fellows! And great improvements, Jeremy! Thanks for keep the platform always in eternal development. Do we have an strategy for delivering it to the right receivers? proud! joana On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the > latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references > to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To > address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to > "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. > The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" > should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". > > Thanks! > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > > Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the > text is now closed. > > I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted > last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to > verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, > I do not have any way of separating the organisational and > non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. > > Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and > convincing letter. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > > -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From deborah at accessnow.org Thu Jun 13 20:12:47 2013 From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown) Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:12:47 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> Message-ID: Great work all! Is the idea to email the letter to all members of Congress? I've been doing some outreach to the DC -based groups that Anriette mentioned earlier, but I want to make sure we're all on the same page about the delivery strategy. Best, Deborah Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 8:00 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Excellent work, fellows! > > And great improvements, Jeremy! Thanks for keep the platform always in eternal development. > > Do we have an strategy for delivering it to the right receivers? > > proud! > > joana > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > A few typos: > > Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to “allegations” above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? > > Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" > > Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". > > Thanks! > Kevin > ____________________________________ > Kevin S. Bankston > Senior Counsel and Free Expression Director > Center for Democracy & Technology > 1634 I St NW, Suite 1100 > Washington, DC 20006 > 202.407.8834 direct > 202.637.0968 fax > kbankston at cdt.org > > Follow CDT on Twitter at @cendemtech > > On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:41 PM, Kevin Bankston wrote: > >> Thanks Jeremy! When does the window for signing close? >> >> On Jun 13, 2013, at 7:38 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >>> The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >>> >>> If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise the text is now closed. >>> >>> I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. >>> >>> Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and convincing letter. >>> >>> -- >>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>> Senior Policy Officer >>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia >>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>> >>> >>> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 >>> >>> >>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational >>> >>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. >>> >>> >> > > > > > -- > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 13 21:12:02 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:42:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> Message-ID: <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> > Just another "ITU are good people" article, with rather more venom towards the multistakeholder model than some other articles I have seen. This man seems to detest civil society and the security / technical community almost as much as our resident eminent thirdworldist detests the USA and that takes some doing :) > > ITU could have done a far better job and played a real role the way they were with bob shaw running security related cooperation there till 2008 > --srs (iPad) > >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/internet-governance_b_3435812.html >> -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 00:14:10 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:44:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database. I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit here. Again I reiterate that I'm against DRM > The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional > component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player: > A “content decryption module” (CDM). > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would > make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the > CDMs is seeking to achieve.) Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; so there's no question of this obstructing use on an open OS or otherwise. It will not prevent the open source community from utilizing what they've bought. My point is that this is *not a sufficient basis* for rejecting DRM. Again, for clarity's sake noting here that I'm against DRM The key reason I'm against DRM is here: In one instance of DRM that caused a rift with consumers, Amazon.comremotely deleted purchased copies of George Orwell 's *Nineteen Eighty-Four * and *Animal Farm * from customers' Amazon Kindles after providing them a refund for the purchased products. [44] Commentators have widely described these actions as Orwellian , and have alluded to Big Brother from Orwell's *Nineteen Eighty-Four*.[45] [46] [ 47] [48 ] After an Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos issued a public apology, the Free Software Foundationwrote that this was just one more example of the excessive power Amazon has to remotely censor what people read through its software, and called upon Amazon to free its e-book reader and drop DRM.[49]Amazon then revealed that the reason behind its deletion was the ebooks in question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, which were not within the public domain and to which the company that published and sold them on Amazon's service had no rights.[50] ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management I would personally hate it if I bought a software/book/movie/ whatever, and then the seller comes back to me and says "yes we're recalling it and you'll get your money back" with some fragile excuse of 'unauthorized replication' - which THEY should have checked FIRST. That's their problem, not mine - and is also a different argument which we shouldn't get into at this point. That apart, various Digital Restrictions Management mechanisms have existed in the past - many of which have been bypassed, cracked & patched out of the software. Some of which were so trivial to bypass it's like it didn't exist in the first place. Sooner or later they were bound to want greater control over what they make/sell - but that's neither here nor there. IMHO if "goods once sold are sold for good" the rights to store that as we want to store it belong to us (with the understanding of course that we would not pirate/resell/etc it). -C On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not > > "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity > > for the purchase validation process? > > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database. > > For example, I have literature which is of a kind that (in some > totalitarian states) people have been literally persecuted and killed > for having. > > This kind of potential risk is not only in regard to human rights > violations by states. What if some kind of terrorist organization > delares a “jihad” against all who read a certain book or watch a > certain video? > > > I think that this is a relevant concern in regard to DRM, even if it > not one that I have been addressing in my recent posting. There I was > talking about protecting one's privacy in regard to communications etc > by means of using a Free Software operating system platform, and about > the potential dilemma that could easily arise if DRM'd content becomes > increasingly important (from the user's perspective) but because of the > DRM it is not accessible using a Free Software operating system > platform. > > > Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that > > work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example > > this list here: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems). > .. > > In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for > > DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using > > an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be > > able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using > > freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player). > > The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional > component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player: > A “content decryption module” (CDM). > > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would > make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the > CDMs is seeking to achieve.) > > > Roland Perry wrote: > > It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen" > > (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted > > concept of "freedom of speech". > > > > Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to > > run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't > > play the game? > > That's not the type of situation that I'm protesting against. > > Suppose someone has an X-box (with some games) and a PC with Microsoft > Windows as OS. Two separate physical machines which connect to the > Internet using the same IP address (via a NAT box). The person then > replaces Microsoft Windows on the PC with a different OS which the > user believe has better privacy protection properties. If that action > has the consequence that the X-box gets remotely disabled, making all > the games on the X-box unplayable on the X-box, then I'd say that that > situation is analogous to DRM's cultural goods which are accessible > only on some “mainstream” operating system platforms but not on user > modifiable operating system platforms. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 00:15:19 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:45:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: The only exception I think to the 'recall + money back' would be I think Toyota's cars. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%9311_Toyota_vehicle_recalls On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold > > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the > > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database. > > I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit > here. Again I reiterate that I'm against DRM > > > The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional > > component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player: > > A “content decryption module” (CDM). > > > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made > > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would > > make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the > > CDMs is seeking to achieve.) > > Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the > resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; so there's no > question of this obstructing use on an open OS or otherwise. It will not > prevent the open source community from utilizing what they've bought. My > point is that this is *not a sufficient basis* for rejecting DRM. Again, > for clarity's sake noting here that I'm against DRM > > The key reason I'm against DRM is here: > In one instance of DRM that caused a rift with consumers, Amazon.comremotely deleted purchased copies of George > Orwell 's *Nineteen > Eighty-Four * and *Animal > Farm * from customers' Amazon > Kindles after providing them > a refund for the purchased products.[44]Commentators have widely described these actions as > Orwellian , and have alluded to Big > Brother from Orwell's > *Nineteen Eighty-Four*.[45] > [46] > [47] > [48] After an Amazon CEO Jeff > Bezos issued a public apology, > the Free Software Foundationwrote that this was just one more example of the excessive power Amazon has > to remotely censor what people read through its software, and called upon > Amazon to free its e-book reader and drop DRM.[49]Amazon then revealed that the reason behind its deletion was the ebooks in > question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, which were not > within the public domain and to which the company that published and sold > them on Amazon's service had no rights.[50] > > ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management > > I would personally hate it if I bought a software/book/movie/ whatever, > and then the seller comes back to me and says "yes we're recalling it and > you'll get your money back" with some fragile excuse of 'unauthorized > replication' - which THEY should have checked FIRST. That's their problem, > not mine - and is also a different argument which we shouldn't get into at > this point. > > That apart, various Digital Restrictions Management mechanisms have > existed in the past - many of which have been bypassed, cracked & patched > out of the software. Some of which were so trivial to bypass it's like it > didn't exist in the first place. Sooner or later they were bound to want > greater control over what they make/sell - but that's neither here nor > there. IMHO if "goods once sold are sold for good" the rights to store that > as we want to store it belong to us (with the understanding of course that > we would not pirate/resell/etc it). > > -C > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: >> >> > In the context of Disney movies - assuming "purchased" and not >> > "pirated" - wouldnt the purchaser already be exposing their identity >> > for the purchase validation process? >> >> I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold >> rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the >> “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of database. >> >> For example, I have literature which is of a kind that (in some >> totalitarian states) people have been literally persecuted and killed >> for having. >> >> This kind of potential risk is not only in regard to human rights >> violations by states. What if some kind of terrorist organization >> delares a “jihad” against all who read a certain book or watch a >> certain video? >> >> >> I think that this is a relevant concern in regard to DRM, even if it >> not one that I have been addressing in my recent posting. There I was >> talking about protecting one's privacy in regard to communications etc >> by means of using a Free Software operating system platform, and about >> the potential dilemma that could easily arise if DRM'd content becomes >> increasingly important (from the user's perspective) but because of the >> DRM it is not accessible using a Free Software operating system >> platform. >> >> > Further DRM as a part of the standard would mean that browsers that >> > work on *nix platforms would also support the standard (for example >> > this list here: >> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers_for_Unix_and_Unix-like_operating_systems). >> .. >> > In fact most browsers would sooner or later have built in support for >> > DRM just in the process of following the standard. Thus people using >> > an open source platform (using Linux as an example) would easily be >> > able to make the purchase, as well as watch the movie both using >> > freely available (OS + Browser + Movie Player). >> >> The specification which is under discussion foresees that an additional >> component will be needed in addition to OS + Browser + Movie Player: >> A “content decryption module” (CDM). >> >> In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made >> available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so would >> make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture with the >> CDMs is seeking to achieve.) >> >> >> Roland Perry wrote: >> > It seems to me that there's a mistaken concept of "freedom to listen" >> > (by all and any available means) in addition to the well accepted >> > concept of "freedom of speech". >> > >> > Is it an infringement of my human rights if I have to buy an X-box to >> > run a particular X-box game, because my open source *nix PC won't >> > play the game? >> >> That's not the type of situation that I'm protesting against. >> >> Suppose someone has an X-box (with some games) and a PC with Microsoft >> Windows as OS. Two separate physical machines which connect to the >> Internet using the same IP address (via a NAT box). The person then >> replaces Microsoft Windows on the PC with a different OS which the >> user believe has better privacy protection properties. If that action >> has the consequence that the X-box gets remotely disabled, making all >> the games on the X-box unplayable on the X-box, then I'd say that that >> situation is analogous to DRM's cultural goods which are accessible >> only on some “mainstream” operating system platforms but not on user >> modifiable operating system platforms. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 14 00:29:04 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:29:04 +0800 Subject: [governance] #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy In-Reply-To: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 1:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list posting > already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it easy to > twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for the IGC: > #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) #CSIGC perhaps. -- *Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 261 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 03:39:00 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:39:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] A positive right to privacy in the most current version of Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BAC894.7000301@gmail.com> When the context changes so must the law. But there are dimensions that are not fully captured... and it is perhaps relevant about thinking about these rights in an exploratory way, even though law requires precision: Positive and Negative rights Socio-economic rights tend to be negative defensive... that is the state cannot take certain actions, like evicting people from land if there is no alternative to them, rather than a positive duty to provide shelter. This is a cold war relic in the formative years of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaties, positive rights being a victim of McCarthyism, imho. What is missing in the HR discussions is the issue commodification of individual information as aggregated (kinda like database protection in the EU). You/we are now the product for abuse by both companies and the USG and other governments. LIbertarians hold that free contracting individuals can enter agreements based on consent and that is the best form of liberty, freedom to contract without government interference. But when there is a unilateral change to the service companies terms of service, or a change in its business model, this is a unilateral act, may be made consensual, but creates negative externalities and creates social costs that are dispersed affecting third parties - another collective action trap, aggregated benefits for small numbers of BigData providers and diffuse costs for many many other people. If privacy were a right, this could be seen as a small expropriation... which is why I reject the libertarian view of voluntrism. Just recently the US court said that human genes cannot be patented. Knowing how useless and permissive the US patent office has been in granting low quality patents (spurring a real problem for US communications and information systems businesses) this is a major shift. So why can certain forms of data and information simply not be "property" or commodified? And if it is property, why is taking/usurping not viewed as a small expropriation or regulatory taking? This implies of course that the shape/design of the technology and the institutions (in broad sense) around it be geared toward this capability of taking... should there be a social audit of what can be done to improve the privacy and dignity respecting capabilities of the technology? A social audit is essential since all indications are that the USG is going to deliver a whitewash in oversight... Have technical experts been rather lax at getting public interest issues like this through governance arrrangemetns? And if they face impediments in getting DNSec etc off the ground, should they nor reach out more and build a constituency around it if their actions have not worked? Or should we leave them in the technical realm... Just because the USG spits on its own constitution and on the rights of others does not mean that we have to acquiesce to the Guantanamofication of the Internet. We should decolonise the imagination... technology can be shaped by social consensus... Great stuff Brazilians... years of US sponsored/supported dictatorships seems to have bred a revived ethic... fabulous stuff! On 2013/06/13 08:05 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I understand your point and that is why language and grammar actually > matters in bill drafting (every verb and comma matters!). I will look > carefully at the Portuguse version and talk to Molon and other folks > about it. But I do think we have a good opportunity to ensure that the > positive side is also established. A question to pose would also be if > the Marco Civil has space to set norms to "protect" Brazilian citizens > from overreaching acts of foreign agencies. > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > > wrote: > > Oh, I see. I didn't know of this this concept for the term > 'positive right', especially if its opposite is 'negative right', > as you mentioned. > Positive right in this sense is very commonly understood as an > entitlement that the state positively do something - a provision > or service of some kind. It follows that social rights are thus > positive rights. > Again, I believe all rights have both dimensions (negative and > positive) and fully support the view that there are positive > actions the state must take to protect privacy, instead of merely > foregoing to violate it. > My only point is that the articles in the Marco Civil that you > mentioned do not convey that idea. They /can/ be read as > dispositions that protect only a negative right to privacy. > > Best, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Carolina Rossini > > > wrote: > > Dear Ivar, > > I understand privacy has been traditionally considered a > negative right, but Marco Civil is trying to change that. A > positive right is a right that has been affirmed by statute, > so in law or in a constitution of some kind, and opens the > door for claims. I also see it as a positive right, since it > gives us more control over our data. > > However, if you have a better language, you and any other > person, should feel free to suggest. We still have time to > improve. > > I will be with Molon next week, so I would be happy to > consolidate suggestions and deliver to him. > > C > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Ivar A. M. Hartmann > > wrote: > > Carolina, > > Maybe you feel other articles in the current draft of > Marco Civil are better evidence of a positive dimension of > the right to privacy. But I don't see how articles 3, 8 > and 10 are an evidence of that. > /These dispositions are all compatible with the > understanding of privacy as a negative right alone/. > That is not to say privacy doesn't have a positive > dimension - I believe all rights have, including free > speech. Such isn't the prevalent view in the US, however. > A more clear adoption of the positive dimension by the > Brazilian legislator is therefore in order. > Best regards, > Ivar > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Carolina Rossini > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > Taking in consideration all the recent news, I would > like to share with you the current version of the > Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil) in > english. This is not the same version available in the > Brazilian Congress website, it is the final version > put out by House Representative Molon (thus, newer). > There is a positive right to privacy in our bill, so > it would be interesting to think if this is the time > to ask the same in other countries. Below, articles 3, > 8 and 10 that deal with the issue. Article 10 has been > criticized by privacy advocates from other countries > due to log retention, but I do feel it is something > that has been incorporated in our culture, since been > debated since 2000 in Brazil and the bill also > requeres court order (even before we started the Marco > Civil debate). (Joana, in the list, can provide her > views on this) > > /*Article 3* The regulation of Internet use in Brazil > underlies the following principles:/ > > /II – protecting privacy;/ > > /*Article 8 *Protection of the right to privacy and > freedom of expression in communications is a > prerequisite for the full enforcement of the right of > access to the Internet./ > > /*Article 10.*Record retention of Internet connection > and access to application logs, for the purposes of > this Act, must protect the privacy, private life, > honor and image of the parties directly or indirectly > involved./ > > /§ 1 The provider responsible for record retention > will only be required to provide the aforementioned > logs, alone or combined with other information that > may help identifying a user or terminal, upon court > order, as set forth in Section IV of this Chapter./ > > // > > /§ 2 Security and confidentiality measures and > procedures must be communicated by the connectivity > services provider and clearly meet the standards set > forth by regulation./ > > /§ 3 Breach of the aforementioned confidentiality > right is subject to criminal, civil or administrative > sanctions./ > > I will host Mr. Molon next week in meetings at Harvard > (including at Berkman). So, if you have any thoughts > or questions you want to ask him or contributions, > please let me know. Talking to his assessors, we > concluded that a letter of support, or words of > support focused on how Marco Civil creates a positive > right to privacy are also timely adequate and welcomed. > > Thank you, > > Carol > > -- > > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com > * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com * > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 03:50:03 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:50:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> Techincally I have to defer. The problem of unimportance is belied by the variously vicious and polite objections (I can provide details but it does not matter now) from this list to WSIS and IGF where we have the proverbial 'dogs of war' set upon us every time we raise this matter...? My view is that this is a political rather than technical matter... swept under the carpet but getting sexy in this age of cummupence... Riaz On 2013/06/13 11:53 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <51B858AC.4050000 at internetnz.net.nz>, at 23:17:00 on Wed, > 12 Jun 2013, Keith Davidson writes >> Unless you could enthuse a large number of ccTLD managers, the RIRs >> and the Root Server operators to operate an alternate database > > The DNS root zone file is of little use to RIRs[1], and even IANA's > database of allocations of blocks of AS numbers and IP addresses is of > little practical use on a day to day basis. > > Sometimes people conflate the role of RIRs as occasional secondary DNS > server hosts for ccTLDs with anything that impacts their core > operations with respect to IP Addresses, and even being such a > secondary host only requires receiving updates from the ccTLD operator > and not ICANN. > > [1] I'm aware that one RIR operates a root server, but that's an > entirely different project. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 04:06:57 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:06:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] Thousands Of Firms Trade Confidential Data With The US Government In Exchange For Classified Intelligence (...Bloomberg...) Message-ID: <51BACF21.9000200@gmail.com> [The challenge for multistakeholderism... now IFF you don't/can't/refuse to take BigCorporates and USG relationship seriously with stuff like this happening... and can yawn at the regulatory revolving door between companies and the USG then Multistakeholderism can simply be seen as the soft glove over the imperial fist on a reasonable basis... and it also serves to dilute the legitimate concerns of some Third World countries to have democratic control over CIR... something we cannot even discuss reasonably in a non-binding forum... ] Thousands Of Firms Trade Confidential Data With The US Government In Exchange For Classified Intelligence Tyler Durden's picture Submitted by Tyler Durden on 06/14/2013 00:29 -0400 The rabbit hole just got deeper. A whole lot deeper. On Sunday we predicated that "there's one reason why the administration, James Clapper and the NSA should just keep their mouths shut as the PRISM-gate fallout escalates: *with every incremental attempt to refute some previously unknown facet of the US Big Brother state, a new piece of previously unleaked information from the same intelligence organization now scrambling for damage control, emerges and exposes the brand new narrative as yet another lie, forcing even more lies, more retribution against sources, more journalist persecution and so on*." And like a hole that just gets deeper the more you dug and exposes ever more dirt, tonight's installment revealing one more facet of the conversion of a once great republic into a great fascist, "big brother" state, comes from Bloomberg which reports that "thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, *providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said*." The companies extend far wider than the legacy telcos, such as Verizon, that launched the entire NSA-spying scandal a week ago: "Makers of hardware and software, banks, Internet security providers, satellite telecommunications companies and many other companies also participate in the government programs. In some cases, the information gathered may be used not just to defend the nation but to help infiltrate computers of its adversaries." Many of these same Internet and telecommunications companies voluntarily provide U.S. intelligence organizations with additional data, such as equipment specifications, that don't involve private communications of their customers, the four people said. And since what goes on behind the scenes is confidential, literally anything goes: "Along with the NSA, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and branches of the U.S. military have agreements with such companies to gather data that might seem innocuous but could be highly useful in the hands of U.S. intelligence or cyber warfare units, according to the people, who have either worked for the government or are in companies that have these accords." Some of the back and forth is innocuous, such as Microsoft revealing ahead of time the nature of its exposed bugs (ostensibly providing the government with a back door into any system using a Microsoft OS, but since it's don't ask, dont' tell, nobody really knows). However the bulk of the interaction is steeped in secrecy: "Most of the arrangements are so sensitive that only a handful of people in a company know of them, and they are sometimes brokered directly between chief executive officers and the heads of the U.S.'s major spy agencies, the people familiar with those programs said." More on this "company within a company": Typically, a key executive at a company and a small number of technical people cooperate with different agencies and sometimes multiple units within an agency, according to the four people who described the arrangements. *If necessary, a company executive, known as a "committing officer," is given documents that guarantee immunity from civil actions resulting from the transfer of data*. The companies are provided with regular updates, which may include the broad parameters of how that information is used. Remember how they say conspiracies are impossible because too many people know about them, and the information always eventually leaks? Well not if you contain it to a handful of people in any organization, and force them to sign a bloody NDA, pledging one's first born in the case of secrecy breach. An example of a company that is happy to "communicate" with tht the government is Intel's McAfee internet security unit, which in addition to everything is one giant backdoor entrance for the government. If need be of course: Intel Corp. (INTC)'s McAfee unit, which makes Internet security software, regularly cooperates with the NSA, FBI and the CIA, for example, and is a valuable partner because of its broad view of malicious Internet traffic, including espionage operations by foreign powers, according to one of the four people, who is familiar with the arrangement. Such a relationship would start with an approach to McAfee's chief executive, who would then clear specific individuals to work with investigators or provide the requested data, the person said. The public would be surprised at how much help the government seeks, the person said. McAfee firewalls collect information on hackers who use legitimate servers to do their work, and the company data can be used to pinpoint where attacks begin. The company also has knowledge of the architecture of information networks worldwide, which may be useful to spy agencies who tap into them, the person said. Google, another participant in PRISM, already lied about its participation in the covert-op: Following an attack on his company by Chinese hackers in 2010, Sergey Brin, Google's co-founder, was provided with highly sensitive government intelligence linking the attack to a specific unit of the People's Liberation Army, China's military, according to one of the people, who is familiar with the government's investigation. *Brin was given a temporary classified clearance to sit in on the briefing, the person said*. *According to information provided by Snowden, Google, owner of the world's most popular search engine, had at that point been a Prism participant for more than a year.* *Google CEO Larry Page said in a blog posting June 7 that he hadn't heard of a program called Prism until after Snowden's disclosures and that the Mountain View, California-based company didn't allow the U.S. government direct access to its servers or some back-door to its data centers. *He said Google provides user data to governments "only in accordance with the law." Ah yes, the law that no mere mortal can observe in action, and which has zero popular checks and balances. So what specifically does Google provide to the government? "/*Highly offensive information*/" it appears. That metadata includes which version of the operating system, browser and Java software are being used on millions of devices around the world, information that U.S. spy agencies could use to infiltrate those computers or phones and spy on their users. *"It's highly offensive information," *said Glenn Chisholm, the former chief information officer for Telstra Corp (TLS)., one of Australia's largest telecommunications companies, contrasting it to defensive information used to protect computers rather than infiltrate them. Going back to Obama's promise on live TV that nobody was listening in to any conversations, one wonders: why did the major telecom companies "*ask for guarantees that they wouldn't be held liable under U.S. wiretap laws*." Because if the companies demanded a waiver, they obviously were wiretapping, i.e., eavesdropping, and doing so on US citizens, or those protected by US laws. And that's why Obama should have just kept his mouth shut, instead of having to explain what he meant and that he never said what he said. Before they agreed to install the system on their networks, some of the five major Internet companies -- AT&T Inc. (T), Verizon Communications Inc (VZ)., Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), Level 3 Communications Inc (LVLT). and CenturyLink Inc (CTL). -- *asked for guarantees that they wouldn't be held liable under U.S. wiretap laws*. Those companies that asked received a *letter signed by the U.S. attorney general *indicating such exposure didn't meet the legal definition of a wiretap and *granting them immunity from civil lawsuits, the person said*. Ah, the US Attorney General - because what is another Obama scandal that doesn't involve his primary henchman Eric Holder... Mark Siegel, a spokesman for Dallas-based AT&T, the nation's biggest phone carrier, declined to comment. Edward McFadden, a spokesman for New York-based Verizon, the second-largest phone company, declined to comment. Scott Sloat, a spokesman for Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint, and Monica Martinez, a spokeswoman for Broomfield, Colorado-based Level 3, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. No need to comment - it's quite clear. The last question remains: what do companies get out of this proactive betrayal of their clients? Well, in some cases, such as those of IBM and Amazon as we described yesterday , they get lucrative government (CIA) contracts for billions of dollars. But that's just taxpayer cash. Where it gets worse is when the kickbacks are yet /*more secrets*/. In exchange, *leaders of companies are showered with attention and information by the agencies to help maintain the relationship, *the person said. In other cases, *companies are given quick warnings about threats that could affect their bottom line, *including serious Internet attacks and who is behind them. In other words, what is going on behind the scenes is nothing more than one vast, very selective, extremely secretive, symbiotic and perfectly "legal" giant information exchange network, which allows corporations to profit off classified government information either in kind or in cash, and which allows the government to have all the information at its disposal, collected using public and private venues, in order to protect itself, to take out those it designates as targets, or simply said - to get ever bigger. The loser in all of this? You. Average: 4.962965 Your rating: None Average: 5 (27 votes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: picture-5.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18993 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From keith at internetnz.net.nz Fri Jun 14 04:11:46 2013 From: keith at internetnz.net.nz (Keith Davidson) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:11:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz> On 14/06/2013 7:50 p.m., Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Techincally I have to defer. > > The problem of unimportance is belied by the variously vicious and > polite objections (I can provide details but it does not matter now) > from this list to WSIS and IGF where we have the proverbial 'dogs of > war' set upon us every time we raise this matter...? > > My view is that this is a political rather than technical matter... > swept under the carpet but getting sexy in this age of cummupence... The WSIS / ITU / UN / IGF solution to change the US Governments unilateral control over the IANA database is to add more governments through various suggested formulas to create a multilateral controlling body. There are two aspects to this that cause me intense discomfort. 1. If the idea of "1 Government = bad" is true, then the idea that "more Governments = better" flies in the face of logic, and in fact if 1 = bad then surely more = worse... 2. It is true that the US Government originally invested massively in time and dollars in the development of the Internet - although not deliberately, but through the military and academic communities, and therefore is justified to take a patriarchal role in the management of the Internet's unique identifiers. And generally the US Government has acted fairly and appropriately, and is gradually enabling greater autonomy to ICANN, as ICANN proves itself more capable of assuming greater control. It is hard to find actual and significant examples where the US Government has not acted in the best interests of the global internet community, or acted purely from self interest. And it is getting easier to find examples of the US Government moving towards enabling ICANN greater autonomy. For examples: - The change from Contract to Memorandum of Understanding to the current "affirmation of commitments" as the agreement between the USG and ICANN - The latest IANA contract negotiations went through two stages of public consultation, and the final contract with ICANN for the IANA function was much modified to take account of the input from the global Internet community - particularly in terms of recognising sovereign rights of nation states. And actually multistakeholder control is what we all eventually seek - the Internet is much too important to be another plaything / political football of governments - so it behoves us to ensure that multistakeholderism, with business, government, civil society and the technical and academic communities jointly and equally participating is the appropriate future of "ruling the root". Cheers Keith -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 04:50:13 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:50:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Twitter hashtag for IGC (was Re: #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy) In-Reply-To: <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> References: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20130614105013.0366ab13@quill.bollow.ch> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:29:04 +0800 schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > On 14/06/2013, at 1:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list > > posting already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it > > easy to twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for > > the IGC: #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) > > #CSIGC perhaps. Is #IGCaucus too long? It has the advantage of corresponding to the domain name that we use. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 04:58:57 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:28:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Twitter hashtag for IGC (was Re: #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy) In-Reply-To: <20130614105013.0366ab13@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> <20130614105013.0366ab13@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I vote 'YES' for #IGCaucus On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Am Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:29:04 +0800 > schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : > > > On 14/06/2013, at 1:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list > > > posting already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it > > > easy to twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for > > > the IGC: #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) > > > > #CSIGC perhaps. > > Is #IGCaucus too long? It has the advantage of corresponding to the > domain name that we use. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 05:25:01 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:25:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz> References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> <51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz> Message-ID: <51BAE16D.8010909@gmail.com> Thanks for this Keith. It is wonderful to have a reasoned discussion on this matter for a change. As said previously, when critics wrongly accused some of us of wanting to break the internet, if there is a legitimate form of governance that reflects the international character of the internet then it should not be a problem at all with incremental or radical changes to governance of CIR. In that sense I am, as McT pointed out, a 'single rooter'. One should however expect the development of 'extreme' positions when democratic discussion is foreclosed. As you sow, so shall you reap. It is not nice being in a position to push the 'left' position because the centre is so far to the right... and it is not something I would like to do at all as it is just about desperately creating spaces instead of doing something useful, as many lurkers on this list could possibly attest. Everyone is grateful for US technological investment and innovation, often paid for ordinary people in the US and serviced by USers and many many non-USers whom the technical community welcomes (one place in the world where 'fresh off the boat' is a good thing, although increasingly less so in places like Wisconsin). Reasonably fair (double standards rather than extreme double standards in other words) arrangements can go a long way to taking the sting out of dependency. I do not take the simplistic notion of government bad. Here I take my US history from the early American Institutionalists, like Alexander Hamilton, Frederich List, Richard Ely, Daniel Raymon(?), who focussed on the important matter of the state and thecommonweal . Of course one can understand the anti-government position in the US, but only to the extent that it is consistent, as taxes are high and regulations/regulators, many of which are pro-corporate rather than pro-people , intrusive. From the outside, this is the cost of being the world's policeman (and for some the premier aggressor in the world). So government's role is crucial as it is a site of contestation for the national polity. As can be seen national US control despite its safeguards is insufficient after the NSA saga, and perhaps even Americans may benefit from some international oversight (but one cannot really do that with Bolton at the UN nor the new UN Amb who is Obama's amb. elect despite the practised dominance the US shows at almost all UN agencies... ). The issue is that democratic discussion on this matter has been blocked in some obvious and devious means. This invites bad faith, whether others think this is justified or not. This is an impediment that I hope the likes of you and Curran, Perry, Roland, etc can accomodate instead of what we have had, and which I characterise as 'wild west cowboy' management of this issue. The issue of multistakeholderism is also important. Combined with the active generation of 'bad faith' the bamboozling of those who ask for disciplines on the role of corporates in this process to secure the public interest is enlightening, and also does not behove us to many of its proponents - simply because of the 'fair and foul' treatment metered out on this list and in UN processes. Conflicts of interest are recognised as a problem elsewhere, especially in areas where technical people typically have these conflicts otherwise they would not have developed the skills. It can be managed, but not if it is a non-issue. I am on the record that even ICANN in some instances was more progressive in incremental change than some of their 'usual' defenders in this space. Again, it breeds bad faith, especially since we know how powerful these civil society players are/can be and how powerfully they intimidate, seek to discredit and marginalise particularly certain Third World positions. It is the amount of venom that confirms for us the importance of this matter, as I am sure will become more and more evident as the NSA saga unfolds in all its unconstitutional glory. And I am personally certain that the CIR politics I have seen is about the intimate association between state and the private sector acting in concert (in all the Hannah Arendt banality of evil, simply to make a buck; or to retain US comparative advantage in this field, which is an acceptable national position, but is not global) while we cannot even get public interest issues as an agenda item without a public spat. Personally with ICANN coming to Africa in July, I wait to see what will happen in terms of resource flows and capability transfers as Africans are at overall a much lower technical base (ecosystem wise, not necessarily individually). It may be something useful, where the hegemon actually shows noblesse oblige , or it will be creating loyal vested interests to neutralise opposition while monopolising the local technical polity. Incremental change and noblesse oblige can go together, but this is a conservative position (i.e. privilege with duty) not a market based one (which is revolutionary cos the market can take you through a housing bubble all the way through to a bailout). Generally Africans typically get a bad deal not only because of internal conditions... Contrary to what some may think, we know the score, recognise the powerful forces at work, but insist on believing in the reality of choice: even if we are mocked, scandalised and belittled as human beings. The current saga is showing how parochial the US type analysis is for dealing with these matters - shock at what is happening for some USers, while it is nothing new for many in the South (and in the North). Some perspectivism may not be remiss. When the safety valve of dialogue is blocked in a non-binding forum like the IGF, I am sure you can understand how this will be offensive to a democratic minded sensibility. But glad to hear from you and to have this kind of discussion. I repeat the above so you can appreciate better why things are as they are, and hope, under Norbert's and Sala's able coordination, we can deal with this in a way that has at least some noblesse oblige rather than having us as supplicants on bended knees as others who block this issue typically prefer. We do recognise our subjection, but object to it being flaunted in our faces. On 2013/06/14 11:11 AM, Keith Davidson wrote: > On 14/06/2013 7:50 p.m., Riaz K Tayob wrote: >> Techincally I have to defer. >> >> The problem of unimportance is belied by the variously vicious and >> polite objections (I can provide details but it does not matter now) >> from this list to WSIS and IGF where we have the proverbial 'dogs of >> war' set upon us every time we raise this matter...? >> >> My view is that this is a political rather than technical matter... >> swept under the carpet but getting sexy in this age of cummupence... > > The WSIS / ITU / UN / IGF solution to change the US Governments > unilateral control over the IANA database is to add more governments > through various suggested formulas to create a multilateral > controlling body. There are two aspects to this that cause me intense > discomfort. > > 1. If the idea of "1 Government = bad" is true, then the idea that > "more Governments = better" flies in the face of logic, and in fact if > 1 = bad then surely more = worse... > > 2. It is true that the US Government originally invested massively in > time and dollars in the development of the Internet - although not > deliberately, but through the military and academic communities, and > therefore is justified to take a patriarchal role in the management of > the Internet's unique identifiers. And generally the US Government has > acted fairly and appropriately, and is gradually enabling greater > autonomy to ICANN, as ICANN proves itself more capable of assuming > greater control. > > It is hard to find actual and significant examples where the US > Government has not acted in the best interests of the global internet > community, or acted purely from self interest. > > And it is getting easier to find examples of the US Government moving > towards enabling ICANN greater autonomy. For examples: > - The change from Contract to Memorandum of Understanding to the > current "affirmation of commitments" as the agreement between the USG > and ICANN > - The latest IANA contract negotiations went through two stages of > public consultation, and the final contract with ICANN for the IANA > function was much modified to take account of the input from the > global Internet community - particularly in terms of recognising > sovereign rights of nation states. > > And actually multistakeholder control is what we all eventually seek - > the Internet is much too important to be another plaything / political > football of governments - so it behoves us to ensure that > multistakeholderism, with business, government, civil society and the > technical and academic communities jointly and equally participating > is the appropriate future of "ruling the root". > > Cheers > > Keith > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 05:46:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:46:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130614114606.35b021e9@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold > > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the > > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of > > database. > > I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit > here. It is true that it is already being done quite independently of DRM for example in the context of physical books bought from Amazon. But physical books can also be bought in ways that do not involve creating such a data trail. (At least as long as there is a physical bookstore near where you are which has the book that you want in the shop, and you pay cash, and you don't use a “customer loyalty” card when buying it.) That is not likely to be possible for DRM'd electronic books, videos, etc. Hence I consider this issue a valid argument against DRM. > > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made > > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so > > would make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture > > with the CDMs is seeking to achieve.) > > Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the > resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; If I rightfully purchase something and get it in encrypted form, but the relevant Content Decryption Module (CDM) doesn't run on the computer that I use, that is supposed to be pretty effective in preventing me from accessing the content that I've purchased. > The key reason I'm against DRM is here: [snip] I agree with all of that. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Fri Jun 14 05:50:44 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:50:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRPCoalition] Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> Message-ID: <51BAE774.8090206@panamo.eu> Thanks for your great work! I just published a French translation: http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr/2013/06/14/surveillance-lettre-au-congres-des-etats-unis/ Let me know, please, any mistake. Kind regards, -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 14/06/13 01:38, Jeremy Malcolm a écrit : > The letter to Congress is now up for endorsement! > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > If you find any obvious errors please point them out, but otherwise > the text is now closed. > > I have added a "Country" field to the endorsement form (this was > omitted last time just by accident), and I have experimentally > disabled the need to verify your signature by email. We'll see if > this leads to spam. For now, I do not have any way of separating the > organisational and non-organisational endorsements, though that is coming. > > Please spread widely and congratulations everyone for a very solid and > convincing letter. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org > | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . Don't > print this email unless necessary. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 06:18:06 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:18:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> As was mentioned before, the letter text is essentially fixed now, and open to endorsements: http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ Should the coordinators take the relative silence to mean that unlike in regard to the HTML5 issue, it is generally felt that in this particular advocacy activity, an endorsement from the IGC is not likely to help, and therefore we should not bother going through the steps to make the decision for the Caucus to endorse the statement (or not) ??? Greetings, Norbert Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > There's ongoing work to create an international civil society letter > to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. > > The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for these > discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > The draft statement is at: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a statement > with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - you're not > actually supposed to put your name there.) > > The planned timeline is: > > 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with > final clean up > 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) > 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website > Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) > > Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? > > If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several > expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal > consensus call. > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Jun 14 06:44:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:14:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51BAF415.3090201@itforchange.net> We should certainly seek IGC endorsement. This is too important a matter for IGC to do nothing about - I mean if we are not contemplating our own statement... Since there isnt much time to give endorsement, co- coordinators should initiate the call for possible endorsement right away... Thanks, parmidner On Friday 14 June 2013 03:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > As was mentioned before, the letter text is essentially fixed now, and > open to endorsements: > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > Should the coordinators take the relative silence to mean that unlike in > regard to the HTML5 issue, it is generally felt that in this particular > advocacy activity, an endorsement from the IGC is not likely to help, > and therefore we should not bother going through the steps to make the > decision for the Caucus to endorse the statement (or not) ??? > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> There's ongoing work to create an international civil society letter >> to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. >> >> The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for these >> discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> The draft statement is at: >> >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >> >> (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a statement >> with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - you're not >> actually supposed to put your name there.) >> >> The planned timeline is: >> >> 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with >> final clean up >> 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) >> 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website >> Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) >> >> Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? >> >> If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several >> expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal >> consensus call. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 07:17:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:17:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <8F17250E-E1F1-4A09-A128-BBA9B1FFC14C@gmail.com> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> <8F17250E-E1F1-4A09-A128-BBA9B1FFC14C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04b301ce68f0$c154e850$43feb8f0$@gmail.com> +1 M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carolina Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:35 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Cc: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement I support IGC signing on Sent from my iPhone On Jun 13, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > There's ongoing work to create an international civil society letter > to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. > > The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for these > discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > The draft statement is at: > > http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > > (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a statement > with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - you're not > actually supposed to put your name there.) > > The planned timeline is: > > 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with > final clean up 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site > (Jeremy?) 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website Monday > morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) > > Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? > > If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several > expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal > consensus call. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > accept > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > irp ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 07:17:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:17:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> References: <51B92CDB.109@itforchange.net> <61DBD306-7EAC-40C6-9044-EE489454E2B1@gmail.com> <51B93578.3080608@itforchange.net> <51B96325.9040409@ciroap.org> <51B9881D.1020503@apc.org> <51B9D24C.8030503@itforchange.net> <005e01ce6842$d13477d0$739d6770$@gmail.com> <44286165-5A5B-4CC0-9CB8-36ED5D91F315@cdt.org> <51B9EFDA.2040400@itforchange.net> <51B9F775.5060206@itforchange.net> <51B9FCCF.9010406@itforchange.net> <64EB408F-9836-4866-922D-AF5B1B6B7DFC@cdt.org> <86971837-1562-4612-869F-CEE12F4952B6@ciroap. org> <950B5EA6-4941-42CD-95C6-B6B2D958B51B@cdt.org> <31A3477B-1FB2-4167-B7D9-E896C8BDDD41@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <04b401ce68f0$c24032b0$46c09810$@gmail.com> Significant typo at end of last sentence on paragraph 4 "fatally impacts consumer's trust on all American (.) that provide worldwide services." (word missing--likely "companies" Otherwise great job everyone. Sorry that I wasn't around to edit at the end. family stuff kept me off the Internet all day. but whoever did it did a great job. M From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 7:58 PM To: Kevin Bankston Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bestbits] Re: Delivery of International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement On 14/06/2013, at 7:48 AM, Kevin Bankston wrote: A few typos: Paragraph 4 includes the sentence "That was clearly not the case with the latest practices of the US Government (this is inconsistent with references to "allegations" above)" I assume we want to cut the parenthetical. To address the comment in the parenthetical, perhaps change "clearly" to "apparently"? Paragraph 5: "detailed" is misspelled "detailsed" Paragraph 6 begins and ends with quotation marks that need to be deleted. The phrase "which constitute an almost certainly human rights violations" should be "which constitutes an almost certain human rights violation". Fixed, and I also linked between this letter and the last one to the UN Human Rights Council. -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 - Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice . Don't print this email unless necessary. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 07:48:56 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:48:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Top secret clearance holders so numerous they include 'packers/craters' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04ef01ce68f5$2ecc72f0$8c6558d0$@gmail.com> The issue which is not addressed here but is elsewhere (cf. the widely quoted work of James Bamford) of the acess/use of surveillance information for corporate or business agendas which would appear to be also completely out of control including through the massive numbers of those with appropriate security clearances and at least some degree of secure information access. This potentially puts non-US businesses of all types and in all places at an enormous competitive disadvantage. If the US surveillance system essentially has access to whatever information it wishes to access and if that system is accessible either directly or indirectly (as for example through bribery or through say the promise of future benefits/jobs/perks etc.) to specific corporate interests then any notions of "free and competitive markets" are put into very serious question. M -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:59 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Top secret clearance holders so numerous they include 'packers/craters' Begin forwarded message: From: Allan Davidson Subject: Top secret clearance holders so numerous they include 'packers/craters' Date: June 13, 2013 10:30:11 AM EDT To: Dave Farber Don't know if you've seen this yet, Dave Best Allan http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/12/top-secret-clea rance-holders-so-numerous-they-include-packerscraters/?wpisrc=nl_cuzheads Top secret clearance holders so numerous they include 'packers/craters' Edward Snowden (GUARDIAN/GLENN GREENWALD/LAURA POITRAS) The U.S. intelligence community and its legions of private contractors has grown so vast, and has required so many of its employees to secure high-level security clearances, that even people whose job is to move boxes now hold top secret clearance. According to Bloomberg News, a private contractor called CACI International Inc. that works with the Pentagon and intelligence agencies is looking for a "packer/crater" with a top secret clearance. The CACI job listing, which is publicly viewable, says that the employee will "perform the full range of routine to moderately-complex packing and/or crating of various materials to include chillers, generators, boats, and vehicles for shipment domestically or overseas." It's not clear why packing boxes would require security clearance. Unless, of course, the issue has less to do with sensitive government secrets than with the ever-expanding U.S. security clearance system. As many as 4 million people hold "top secret" security clearance, of which 500,000 are private contractors. One reason for this trend is that the U.S. government has become so reflexive about classifying information, much of which is not nearly as sensitive as an NSA spying program, that clearance are required even for totally banal work. One effect of this classification of nearly everything, and subsequent granting of clearances to nearly everyone, is that all it takes is one or two loose cannons among those 4 million clearance-holders to spill out government secrets. Whether or not you think Edward Snowden was morally right to release the information about U.S. telecommunications monitoring to the public, he represents what is becoming a significant problem for U.S. intelligence. As the Washington Post's Greg Miller put it, Snowden and Bradley Manning, who released thousands of classified diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, are both "leakers who worked at the lowest levels of the nation's intelligence ranks but gained access to large caches of classified material." The intelligence community's weakness here is that its classification of so much data and its reliance on private contractors mean that lots and lots of people who might not need access to top secret data are still required to get the clearance. And once there are millions of people poking around behind the clearance wall, it's only a matter of time until one of them decides to release some of it. Because once you're granting so many people access to top secret information that even professional box-packers are on the list, it's not really so secret anymore. ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130613105923:D389CE1E-D439-11E2-A9F2-BE09C481D876 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 08:00:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 14:00:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <51BAF415.3090201@itforchange.net> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> <51BAF415.3090201@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130614140025.7517b654@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > We should certainly seek IGC endorsement. This is too important a > matter for IGC to do nothing about - I mean if we are not > contemplating our own statement... > > Since there isnt much time to give endorsement, co- coordinators > should initiate the call for possible endorsement right away... The time window for endorsement is until Monday morning US time, so IMO there's no need to proceed right away to the consensus call. One alternative to just endorsing http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ would be to endorse it and at the same time also endorse ISOC's statement http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy Views on how IGC should proceed? Greetings, Norbert > > On Friday 14 June 2013 03:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > As was mentioned before, the letter text is essentially fixed now, > > and open to endorsements: > > > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > > > Should the coordinators take the relative silence to mean that > > unlike in regard to the HTML5 issue, it is generally felt that in > > this particular advocacy activity, an endorsement from the IGC is > > not likely to help, and therefore we should not bother going > > through the steps to make the decision for the Caucus to endorse > > the statement (or not) ??? > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > > > Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] > >> > >> There's ongoing work to create an international civil society > >> letter to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. > >> > >> The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for > >> these discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > >> > >> The draft statement is at: > >> > >> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here > >> > >> (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a > >> statement with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - > >> you're not actually supposed to put your name there.) > >> > >> The planned timeline is: > >> > >> 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed > >> with final clean up > >> 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) > >> 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website > >> Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) > >> > >> Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? > >> > >> If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several > >> expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal > >> consensus call. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Norbert > >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:07:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:07:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Bloomberg news: U.S. National Security Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms In-Reply-To: <77E5018E-DEF3-4D18-A753-040856EE02C4@me.com> References: <77E5018E-DEF3-4D18-A753-040856EE02C4@me.com> Message-ID: <050201ce68f7$bb3f1f10$31bd5d30$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dfarber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 7:12 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Bloomberg news: U.S. National Security Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms Thousands of technology, finance and manufacturing companies are working closely with U.S. national security agencies, providing sensitive information and in return receiving benefits that include access to classified intelligence, four people familiar with the process said. http://bloom.bg/14zUlDg ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/22720195-c2c7cbd3 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-8fdd43 08 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=22720195&id_secret=22720195-9 7c5b007&post_id=20130614071227:4A26064C-D4E3-11E2-B986-CCC646A4BD98 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:07:13 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:07:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <050901ce68f7$bc1dbf40$34593dc0$@gmail.com> A wee bit of off the wall humour after a rather heavy week. :) (Note the headline should probably read "Taiwanese" Humorists. M From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:01 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) 06/13/2013 Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden / NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) by Juan Cole Next Media Animation (a Taiwanese subsidiary of a Hong Kong firm) satirizes the Snowden/ NSA surveillance scandal by cartoon (English subtitles): -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. !DSPAM:2676,51ba24ea201487851668833! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:42:58 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:42:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> Just another "ITU are good people" article, with rather more venom towards the multistakeholder model than some other articles I have seen. This man seems to detest civil society and the security / technical community almost as much as our resident eminent thirdworldist detests the USA and that takes some doing :) >> >> ITU could have done a far better job and played a real role the way they were with bob shaw running security related cooperation there till 2008 > >> --srs (iPad) >> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/internet-governance_b_3435812.html I recognise that name...I rebutted him, pre-WCIT at http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_potkettleblack_the_real_hypocrisy_threatening_future_of_internet/ >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cveraq at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:45:52 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 07:45:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Twitter hashtag for IGC (was Re: #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> <20130614105013.0366ab13@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <39E111F2-5C7E-4337-A433-B079CFA60BA4@gmail.com> +1 Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 El 14/06/2013, a las 3:58, Chaitanya Dhareshwar escribió: > I vote 'YES' for #IGCaucus > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:29:04 +0800 >> schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : >> >> > On 14/06/2013, at 1:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > > * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list >> > > posting already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it >> > > easy to twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for >> > > the IGC: #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) >> > >> > #CSIGC perhaps. >> >> Is #IGCaucus too long? It has the advantage of corresponding to the >> domain name that we use. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 08:58:08 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:58:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Twitter hashtag for IGC (was Re: #IGCaucus improvements - towards a forum for #advocacy) In-Reply-To: <39E111F2-5C7E-4337-A433-B079CFA60BA4@gmail.com> References: <20130613195520.7d1b148f@quill.bollow.ch> <51BA9C10.5040808@ciroap.org> <20130614105013.0366ab13@quill.bollow.ch> <39E111F2-5C7E-4337-A433-B079CFA60BA4@gmail.com> Message-ID: +1 On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Carlos Vera Quintana wrote: > +1 > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > > El 14/06/2013, a las 3:58, Chaitanya Dhareshwar > escribió: > > I vote 'YES' for #IGCaucus > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:29:04 +0800 >> schrieb Jeremy Malcolm : >> >> > On 14/06/2013, at 1:55 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> > > * Automatically include the archive URI for each mailing list >> > > posting already in the posting that is sent out. This will make it >> > > easy to twitter about interesting postings. (Suggested hash tag for >> > > the IGC: #IGCaucus - #IGC is already being used by others.) >> > >> > #CSIGC perhaps. >> >> Is #IGCaucus too long? It has the advantage of corresponding to the >> domain name that we use. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:13:21 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:13:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_congr?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?eso_americano?= Message-ID: Hola a todos, Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw Ayuda es bien venida! C -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jun 14 09:50:06 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:50:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> I am not sure what "eminent thirdworldist" means (if I am not wrong, I think the one I should mention would be Celso Furtado), but it is curious that a person defends the ITU and hates techies (I cannot speak about the "technical community" because so far I do not know what it means as well, but I think it also includes all those people concocting "devilish things" in ITU-T, ITU-D etc). Anyway... frt rgds --c.a. On 06/14/2013 09:42 AM, McTim wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian > wrote: >>> Just another "ITU are good people" article, with rather more >>> venom towards the multistakeholder model than some other articles >>> I have seen. This man seems to detest civil society and the >>> security / technical community almost as much as our resident >>> eminent thirdworldist detests the USA and that takes some doing >>> :) >>> >>> ITU could have done a far better job and played a real role the >>> way they were with bob shaw running security related cooperation >>> there till 2008 >> >>> --srs (iPad) >>> >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanchristophe-nothias/internet-governance_b_3435812.html > >>>> > > I recognise that name...I rebutted him, pre-WCIT at > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20121127_potkettleblack_the_real_hypocrisy_threatening_future_of_internet/ > > > > >>>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 09:57:40 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 09:57:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_congreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Done. At http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw. (There is a journalist from Lima checking my spanish, to be sure it is spanish and not portunol) ;-) Jeremy, could you insert both French and Spanish in the Best Bits site pleaseee? :-) On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Carolina Rossini < carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! > > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 10:17:53 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:17:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: That concept is so fuzzy (and demeaning) that one might also include former President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The thirdworldist intellectual who conducted the telecom privatization in Brazil. On Jun 14, 2013 9:51 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" wrote: > I am not sure what "eminent thirdworldist" means (if I am not wrong, I > think the one I should mention would be Celso Furtado), but it is curious > that a person defends the ITU and hates techies (I cannot speak about the > "technical community" because so far I do not know what it means as well, > but I think it also includes all those people concocting "devilish things" > in ITU-T, ITU-D etc). > > Anyway... > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 06/14/2013 09:42 AM, McTim wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian >> wrote: >> >>> Just another "ITU are good people" article, with rather more >>>> venom towards the multistakeholder model than some other articles >>>> I have seen. This man seems to detest civil society and the >>>> security / technical community almost as much as our resident >>>> eminent thirdworldist detests the USA and that takes some doing >>>> :) >>>> >>>> ITU could have done a far better job and played a real role the >>>> way they were with bob shaw running security related cooperation >>>> there till 2008 >>>> >>> >>> --srs (iPad) >>>> >>>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/**jeanchristophe-nothias/** >>>>> internet-governance_b_3435812.**html >>>>> >>>> >> >>>>> >> I recognise that name...I rebutted him, pre-WCIT at >> http://www.circleid.com/posts/**20121127_potkettleblack_the_** >> real_hypocrisy_threatening_**future_of_internet/ >> >> >> >> >> >>>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**______________________________ 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/governanceTo 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From sagbr124 at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 10:24:39 2013 From: sagbr124 at gmail.com (Sagbr) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:24:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) In-Reply-To: <050901ce68f7$bc1dbf40$34593dc0$@gmail.com> References: <050901ce68f7$bc1dbf40$34593dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Agree with the "Taiwanese humorist" Next media is a Hong Kong media group, but this is made by the Taiwan branch. The Chinese dub and subtitle are Taiwan mandarin, not China or HK mandarin. 2013/6/14 michael gurstein > A wee bit of off the wall humour after a rather heavy week… :) (Note the > headline should probably read "Taiwanese" Humorists…**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] *On Behalf > Of *Sid Shniad > *Sent:* Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:01 PM > *To:* undisclosed-recipients: > *Subject:* Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance > Scandal (Video)**** > > ** ** > > *06/13/2013***** > Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden / NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video)* > *** > > *by Juan Cole***** > > *Next Media Animation (a Taiwanese subsidiary of a Hong Kong firm) satirizes > the Snowden/ NSA surveillance scandal by > cartoon (English subtitles):***** > > ** ** > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Sid-l" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > !DSPAM:2676,51ba24ea201487851668833! **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 10:42:09 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 10:42:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > That concept is so fuzzy (and demeaning) that one might also include former > President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The thirdworldist > intellectual who conducted the telecom privatization in Brazil. What suresh actually said was "our resident eminent thirdworldist" meaning on this list. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:02:19 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 11:02:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [liberationtech] [tt] NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism In-Reply-To: <20130614142442.GR22824@leitl.org> References: <20130614142442.GR22824@leitl.org> Message-ID: <06d301ce6910$32695480$973bfd80$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu [mailto:liberationtech-bounces at lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:25 AM To: Liberation Technologies Subject: [liberationtech] [tt] NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/14/climate-chan ge-energy-shocks-nsa-prism Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks NSA Prism is motivated in part by fears that environmentally-linked disasters could spur anti-government activism US domestic surveillance has targeted anti-fracking activists across the country. Photograph: Les Stone/REUTERS Top secret US National Security Agency (NSA) documents disclosed by the Guardian have shocked the world with revelations of a comprehensive US-based surveillance system with direct access to Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants. New Zealand court records suggest that data harvested by the NSA's Prism system has been fed into the Five Eyes intelligence alliance whose members also include the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis - or all three. Just last month, unilateral changes to US military laws formally granted the Pentagon extraordinary powers to intervene in a domestic "emergency" or "civil disturbance": "Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances." Other documents show that the "extraordinary emergencies" the Pentagon is worried about include a range of environmental and related disasters. In 2006, the US National Security Strategy warned that: "Environmental destruction, whether caused by human behavior or cataclysmic mega-disasters such as floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, or tsunamis. Problems of this scope may overwhelm the capacity of local authorities to respond, and may even overtax national militaries, requiring a larger international response." Two years later, the Department of Defense's (DoD) Army Modernisation Strategy described the arrival of a new "era of persistent conflict" due to competition for "depleting natural resources and overseas markets" fuelling "future resource wars over water, food and energy." The report predicted a resurgence of: "... anti-government and radical ideologies that potentially threaten government stability." In the same year, a report by the US Army's Strategic Studies Institute warned that a series of domestic crises could provoke large-scale civil unrest. The path to "disruptive domestic shock" could include traditional threats such as deployment of WMDs, alongside "catastrophic natural and human disasters" or "pervasive public health emergencies" coinciding with "unforeseen economic collapse." Such crises could lead to "loss of functioning political and legal order" leading to "purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency... "DoD might be forced by circumstances to put its broad resources at the disposal of civil authorities to contain and reverse violent threats to domestic tranquility. Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States. Further, DoD would be, by necessity, an essential enabling hub for the continuity of political authority in a multi-state or nationwide civil conflict or disturbance." That year, the Pentagon had begun developing a 20,000 strong troop force who would be on-hand to respond to "domestic catastrophes" and civil unrest - the programme was reportedly based on a 2005 homeland security strategy which emphasised "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." The following year, a US Army-funded RAND Corp study called for a US force presence specifically to deal with civil unrest. Such fears were further solidified in a detailed 2010 study by the US Joint Forces Command - designed to inform "joint concept development and experimentation throughout the Department of Defense" - setting out the US military's definitive vision for future trends and potential global threats. Climate change, the study said, would lead to increased risk of: "... tsunamis, typhoons, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural catastrophes... Furthermore, if such a catastrophe occurs within the United States itself - particularly when the nation's economy is in a fragile state or where US military bases or key civilian infrastructure are broadly affected - the damage to US security could be considerable." The study also warned of a possible shortfall in global oil output by 2015: "A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity. While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions." That year the DoD's Quadrennial Defense Review seconded such concerns, while recognising that "climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked." Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of "large scale economic breakdown" in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain "domestic order amid civil unrest." Speaking about the group's conclusions at giant US defence contractor Booz Allen Hamilton's conference facility in Virginia, Lt Col. Mark Elfendahl - then chief of the Joint and Army Concepts Division - highlighted homeland operations as a way to legitimise the US military budget: "An increased focus on domestic activities might be a way of justifying whatever Army force structure the country can still afford." Two months earlier, Elfendahl explained in a DoD roundtable that future planning was needed: "Because technology is changing so rapidly, because there's so much uncertainty in the world, both economically and politically, and because the threats are so adaptive and networked, because they live within the populations in many cases." The 2010 exercises were part of the US Army's annual Unified Quest programme which more recently, based on expert input from across the Pentagon, has explored the prospect that "ecological disasters and a weak economy" (as the "recovery won't take root until 2020") will fuel migration to urban areas, ramping up social tensions in the US homeland as well as within and between "resource-starved nations." NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden was a computer systems administrator for Booz Allen Hamilton, where he directly handled the NSA's IT systems, including the Prism surveillance system. According to Booz Allen's 2011 Annual Report, the corporation has overseen Unified Quest "for more than a decade" to help "military and civilian leaders envision the future." The latest war games, the report reveals, focused on "detailed, realistic scenarios with hypothetical 'roads to crisis'", including "homeland operations" resulting from "a high-magnitude natural disaster" among other scenarios, in the context of: "... converging global trends [which] may change the current security landscape and future operating environment... At the end of the two-day event, senior leaders were better prepared to understand new required capabilities and force design requirements to make homeland operations more effective." It is therefore not surprising that the increasing privatisation of intelligence has coincided with the proliferation of domestic surveillance operations against political activists, particularly those linked to environmental and social justice protest groups. Department of Homeland Security documents released in April prove a "systematic effort" by the agency "to surveil and disrupt peaceful demonstrations" linked to Occupy Wall Street, according to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). Similarly, FBI documents confirmed "a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector" designed to produce intelligence on behalf of "the corporate security community." A PCJF spokesperson remarked that the documents show "federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America." In particular, domestic surveillance has systematically targeted peaceful environment activists including anti-fracking activists across the US, such as the Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, Rising Tide North America, the People's Oil & Gas Collaborative, and Greenpeace. Similar trends are at play in the UK, where the case of undercover policeman Mark Kennedy revealed the extent of the state's involvement in monitoring the environmental direct action movement. A University of Bath study citing the Kennedy case, and based on confidential sources, found that a whole range of corporations - such as McDonald's, Nestle and the oil major Shell, "use covert methods to gather intelligence on activist groups, counter criticism of their strategies and practices, and evade accountability." Indeed, Kennedy's case was just the tip of the iceberg - internal police documents obtained by the Guardian in 2009 revealed that environment activists had been routinely categorised as "domestic extremists" targeting "national infrastructure" as part of a wider strategy tracking protest groups and protestors. Superintendent Steve Pearl, then head of the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (Nectu), confirmed at that time how his unit worked with thousands of companies in the private sector. Nectu, according to Pearl, was set up by the Home Office because it was "getting really pressured by big business - pharmaceuticals in particular, and the banks." He added that environmental protestors were being brought "more on the radar." The programme continues today, despite police acknowledgements that environmentalists have not been involved in "violent acts." The Pentagon knows that environmental, economic and other crises could provoke widespread public anger toward government and corporations in coming years. The revelations on the NSA's global surveillance programmes are just the latest indication that as business as usual creates instability at home and abroad, and as disillusionment with the status quo escalates, Western publics are being increasingly viewed as potential enemies that must be policed by the state. Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at companys at stanford.edu or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Jun 14 11:18:31 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:18:31 +0800 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_c?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ongreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9314FCB4-F561-41F6-8A0F-0E5A1B9A5A73@ciroap.org> On 14/06/2013, at 9:13 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! Awesome Carolina and Dominique, these two translations are linked from the original now (though styling still needs a bit of work). -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Fri Jun 14 11:23:49 2013 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:23:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_c?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ongreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Carolina, I have left my contribution to the document in Spanish. Best Regards *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet /CTA FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819* *"Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" Eduardo Galeano* 2013/6/14 Carolina Rossini > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! > > C > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:28:50 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:28:50 +1200 Subject: [governance] FW: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) In-Reply-To: References: <050901ce68f7$bc1dbf40$34593dc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Funny video, after a heavy week....:) thanks Michael. Sent from my iPad On Jun 15, 2013, at 2:24 AM, Sagbr wrote: > Agree with the "Taiwanese humorist" > Next media is a Hong Kong media group, but this is made by the Taiwan branch. > The Chinese dub and subtitle are Taiwan mandarin, not China or HK mandarin. > > > 2013/6/14 michael gurstein >> A wee bit of off the wall humour after a rather heavy week… :) (Note the headline should probably read "Taiwanese" Humorists… >> >> >> >> M >> >> >> >> From: sid-l at googlegroups.com [mailto:sid-l at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sid Shniad >> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 4:01 PM >> To: undisclosed-recipients: >> Subject: Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden/ NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) >> >> >> >> 06/13/2013 >> >> Chinese Humorists Satirize the Snowden / NSA Surveillance Scandal (Video) >> >> by Juan Cole >> >> Next Media Animation (a Taiwanese subsidiary of a Hong Kong firm) satirizes the Snowden/ NSA surveillance scandal by cartoon (English subtitles): >> >> >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sid-l" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sid-l+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> !DSPAM:2676,51ba24ea201487851668833! >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 11:42:55 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:42:55 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <20130614140025.7517b654@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> <51BAF415.3090201@itforchange.net> <20130614140025.7517b654@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <7790D12D-5B3B-4138-8DD1-38B6385B2FCF@gmail.com> I think that we should work towards developing a statement from the IGC on this issue. In the meantime, we should endorse the statement developed by Best Bits and if there is lack of consensus, individuals are free to add their names. The issue is too important to let it slide without making a statement. Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> We should certainly seek IGC endorsement. This is too important a >> matter for IGC to do nothing about - I mean if we are not >> contemplating our own statement... >> >> Since there isnt much time to give endorsement, co- coordinators >> should initiate the call for possible endorsement right away... > > The time window for endorsement is until Monday morning US time, so IMO > there's no need to proceed right away to the consensus call. > > One alternative to just endorsing http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > would be to endorse it and at the same time also endorse ISOC's > statement > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy > > Views on how IGC should proceed? > > Greetings, > Norbert > >> >> On Friday 14 June 2013 03:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> As was mentioned before, the letter text is essentially fixed now, >>> and open to endorsements: >>> >>> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >>> >>> Should the coordinators take the relative silence to mean that >>> unlike in regard to the HTML5 issue, it is generally felt that in >>> this particular advocacy activity, an endorsement from the IGC is >>> not likely to help, and therefore we should not bother going >>> through the steps to make the decision for the Caucus to endorse >>> the statement (or not) ??? >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> >>> Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> >>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>> >>>> There's ongoing work to create an international civil society >>>> letter to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. >>>> >>>> The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for >>>> these discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>> >>>> The draft statement is at: >>>> >>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>>> >>>> (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a >>>> statement with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - >>>> you're not actually supposed to put your name there.) >>>> >>>> The planned timeline is: >>>> >>>> 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed >>>> with final clean up >>>> 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) >>>> 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website >>>> Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) >>>> >>>> Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? >>>> >>>> If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several >>>> expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal >>>> consensus call. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Fri Jun 14 11:46:01 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:46:01 -0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> Ah, logic... OK, McTim, Diego is trying to understand the concept Suresh employs to characterize someone among us, not to discover whether we have one among ourselves... :) --c.a. On 06/14/2013 11:42 AM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: >> That concept is so fuzzy (and demeaning) that one might also include former >> President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The thirdworldist >> intellectual who conducted the telecom privatization in Brazil. > > What suresh actually said was "our resident eminent thirdworldist" > > meaning on this list. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 12:05:18 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:05:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to belittle and intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the objective of our activities here. We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to describe individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or other characteristics. Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour from the list. We can and in the past have had spirited dispute and discussion without resorting to this type of activity. (And if any of my interventions in the past could be interpreted as having had the character of the above I retrospectively apologize and will most certainly endeavour to not to do so in the future. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:46 AM To: McTim Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Diego Rafael Canabarro Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet Ah, logic... OK, McTim, Diego is trying to understand the concept Suresh employs to characterize someone among us, not to discover whether we have one among ourselves... :) --c.a. On 06/14/2013 11:42 AM, McTim wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: >> That concept is so fuzzy (and demeaning) that one might also include >> former President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The >> thirdworldist intellectual who conducted the telecom privatization in Brazil. > > What suresh actually said was "our resident eminent thirdworldist" > > meaning on this list. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 12:16:13 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:16:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to belittle and > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the > objective of our activities here. > > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to describe > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or > other characteristics. > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour > from the list. I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the least of the offenders. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ecrire at catherine-roy.net Fri Jun 14 13:00:43 2013 From: ecrire at catherine-roy.net (Catherine Roy) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:00:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51BB4C3B.7000407@catherine-roy.net> On 14/06/2013 12:14 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > In one instance of DRM that caused a rift with consumers, Amazon.com > remotely deleted purchased > copies of George Orwell 's > /Nineteen Eighty-Four > / and /Animal Farm > / from customers' Amazon > Kindles after providing > them a refund for the purchased products.^[44] > > Commentators have widely described these actions as Orwellian > , and have alluded to Big > Brother > > from Orwell's /Nineteen Eighty-Four/.^[45] > > ^[46] > > ^[47] > > ^[48] > > After an Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos > issued a public apology, the > Free Software Foundation > wrote that > this was just one more example of the excessive power Amazon has to > remotely censor what people read through its software, and called upon > Amazon to free its e-book reader and drop DRM.^[49] > > Amazon then revealed that the reason behind its deletion was the > ebooks in question were unauthorized reproductions of Orwell's works, > which were not within the public domain and to which the company that > published and sold them on Amazon's service had no rights.^[50] > > ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management Here is another well-known example: "The Sony BMG CD copy protection rootkit scandal of 2005–2007 concerns copy protection measures implemented by Sony BMG on about 22 million CDs. When inserted into a computer, the CDs installed one of two pieces of software which provided a form of digital rights management (DRM) by modifying the operating system to interfere with CD copying. Both programs could not be easily uninstalled, and they unintentionally created vulnerabilities that were exploited by unrelated malware. One of the programs installed even if the user refused its EULA, and it "phoned home" with reports on the user's private listening habits; the other was not mentioned in the EULA at all, contained code from several pieces of open-source software in an apparent infringement of copyright, and configured the operating system to hide the software's existence, leading to both programs being characterized as rootkits. Sony BMG initially denied that the rootkits were harmful. It then released, for one of the programs, an "uninstaller" that only un-hid the program, installed additional software which could not be easily removed, collected an email address from the user, and introduced further security vulnerabilities. Following public scorn, government investigations and class-action lawsuits in 2005 and 2006, Sony BMG partially addressed the scandal with consumer settlements, a recall of about 10% of the affected CDs, and the suspension of CD copy protection efforts in early 2007." Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal -- Catherine Roy http://www.catherine-roy.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 13:11:37 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:41:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: <20130614114606.35b021e9@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614114606.35b021e9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Nobert, the example of offline purchase is again invalid in the DRM context. Anything you buy online will always leave a usable trail - credit/debit cards, bank transactions, any other means. So DRM in this context brings in nothing new in the context of privacy 'loss'. Buying books at a store or movies at a gas station with cash are always free of this element - but anything you buy online will always be track-able even without DRM. If you do disagree with this and believe DRM will bring in tracking of ONLINE transactions, in a form that does not exist today please give me a viable example of that. As for CDM not working on your platform of choice - this is like the Xbox game example right...? I like a racing game by the cover and choose to buy it only to find I don't have the system required to play it. I have the resources and capability to install the system that will let me play it, but I *choose* not to for whatever reason so the game (or whatever) becomes useless to me. Now this is a case for the jury but IMHO it's just a poor assessment of usage feasibility before purchase. It does happen where kids buy a 3D game without having a 3D headset/eyepiece, and then don't want to buy one for 3x the cost of the game - so the game becomes useless. Ebooks purchased on one site may not be compatible with my reader, and I don't buy the Kindle (or whatever) needed to read it - so the book becomes useless. I buy a windows game that doesnt adequately work in a emulator/virtual environment - so again that's a poor * choice* of purchase. *Not DRM's fault*. So these are not valid arguments against DRM... :) -C On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > > I think that it's very important that when cultural goods are sold > > > rather than shared freely, it must be possible to buy without the > > > “who bought what” information getting recorded in some kind of > > > database. > > > > I say this is already being done. Moot point as DRM is not the culprit > > here. > > It is true that it is already being done quite independently of DRM for > example in the context of physical books bought from Amazon. > > But physical books can also be bought in ways that do not involve > creating such a data trail. (At least as long as there is a physical > bookstore near where you are which has the book that you want in the > shop, and you pay cash, and you don't use a “customer loyalty” card when > buying it.) > > That is not likely to be possible for DRM'd electronic books, videos, > etc. Hence I consider this issue a valid argument against DRM. > > > > In my opinion, it is not plausible to expect the CDMs to be made > > > available for Free Software operating system platforms. (Doing so > > > would make it trivially easy to defeat what that whole architecture > > > with the CDMs is seeking to achieve.) > > > > Doing so will not prevent the FS community from utilizing the > > resources/material that have been rightfully purchased; > > If I rightfully purchase something and get it in encrypted form, but > the relevant Content Decryption Module (CDM) doesn't run on the > computer that I use, that is supposed to be pretty effective in > preventing me from accessing the content that I've purchased. > > > The key reason I'm against DRM is here: > [snip] > > I agree with all of that. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 13:11:22 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 13:11:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] The latest from Greenwald and techdirt's response to leaked NSA talking points Message-ID: <07c401ce6922$37a492e0$a6edb8a0$@gmail.com> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaga nda-prism http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/17490723465/leaked-nsas-talking-po ints-defending-nsa-surveillance.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Fri Jun 14 13:14:15 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 19:14:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] French version of the Letter on coverpage Message-ID: <51BB4F67.6090907@panamo.eu> The Letter is on the Technology cover: http://www.lemonde.fr/technologies/ In case you miss it, I attached a copy. @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Letter2Congress.png Type: image/png Size: 361083 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 13:16:15 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:46:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] The latest from Greenwald and techdirt's response to leaked NSA talking points In-Reply-To: <07c401ce6922$37a492e0$a6edb8a0$@gmail.com> References: <07c401ce6922$37a492e0$a6edb8a0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Is it just me or is the topic of Prism suddenly boring. This feels like a sugar rush - rather interesting and everyone wants to say how horrible it is. But now after a couple days we suddenly realize all this is being monitored, and anyways who really cares if its being monitored or not.... (This is purely IMHO, I'm sure we have people onlist who'd like to continue discussing it) -C On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:41 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/14/nsa-partisanship-propaga > nda-prism > > > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/17490723465/leaked-nsas-talking-po > ints-defending-nsa-surveillance.shtml?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Fri Jun 14 15:38:15 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:38:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement In-Reply-To: <7790D12D-5B3B-4138-8DD1-38B6385B2FCF@gmail.com> References: <20130613215032.651a5bc2@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614121806.0ddbb3f4@quill.bollow.ch> <51BAF415.3090201@itforchange.net> <20130614140025.7517b654@quill.bollow.ch> <7790D12D-5B3B-4138-8DD1-38B6385B2FCF@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1371238695.80915.YahooMailNeo@web125105.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> +1 >________________________________ > From: Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; Norbert Bollow >Cc: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" >Sent: Friday, 14 June 2013, 20:42 >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: {S} International civil society letter to Congress to follow up from HRC statement > > >I think that we should work towards developing a statement from the IGC on this issue. In the meantime, we should endorse the statement developed by Best Bits and if there is lack of consensus, individuals are free to add their names. > >The issue is too important to let it slide without making a statement. > >Sala >Sent from my iPad > >On Jun 15, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> We should certainly seek IGC endorsement. This is too important a >>> matter for IGC to do nothing about - I mean if we are not >>> contemplating our own statement... >>> >>> Since there isnt much time to give endorsement, co- coordinators >>> should initiate the call for possible endorsement right away... >> >> The time window for endorsement is until Monday morning US time, so IMO >> there's no need to proceed right away to the consensus call. >> >> One alternative to just endorsing http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> would be to endorse it and at the same time also endorse ISOC's >> statement >> http://www.internetsociety.org/news/internet-society-statement-importance-open-global-dialogue-regarding-online-privacy >> >> Views on how IGC should proceed? >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >>> >>> On Friday 14 June 2013 03:48 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> As was mentioned before, the letter text is essentially fixed now, >>>> and open to endorsements: >>>> >>>> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >>>> >>>> Should the coordinators take the relative silence to mean that >>>> unlike in regard to the HTML5 issue, it is generally felt that in >>>> this particular advocacy activity, an endorsement from the IGC is >>>> not likely to help, and therefore we should not bother going >>>> through the steps to make the decision for the Caucus to endorse >>>> the statement (or not) ??? >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> >>>> Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>> >>>>> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >>>>> >>>>> There's ongoing work to create an international civil society >>>>> letter to US Congress to follow up from the HRC statement. >>>>> >>>>> The BestBits list has been advertised as the primary locus for >>>>> these discussions, http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>> >>>>> The draft statement is at: >>>>> >>>>> http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here >>>>> >>>>> (As far as the igcaucus.org pad server is concerned, it's a >>>>> statement with the somewhat confusing name "your_name_here" - >>>>> you're not actually supposed to put your name there.) >>>>> >>>>> The planned timeline is: >>>>> >>>>> 10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed >>>>> with final clean up >>>>> 12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?) >>>>> 12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website >>>>> Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?) >>>>> >>>>> Is there interest for the IGC to endorse this? >>>>> >>>>> If by the time that the letter is finalized, there are several >>>>> expressions of support and no objections, I'll issue a formal >>>>> consensus call. >>>>> >>>>> Greetings, >>>>> Norbert >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: >    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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 16:21:07 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 16:21:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls In-Reply-To: References: <01C0746C-9089-474E-8415-363E1D05EA09@warpspeed.com> <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <09c901ce693c$be56b1f0$3b0415d0$@gmail.com> Re: the Economist article, as with the ISOC statement the question is, once having had this insight/knowledge what if anything is one to do... Is one simply to trust governments/companies/techies with that knowledge/information or is it possible to establish constaints on how that information can be used (or collected)? The argument of course, is that there are currently (US) legal constraints on the data/information collection but the problem with that is that there seems to be no effective transparent oversight mechanism concerning the application of US law and absolutely no protection/oversight or constraint on what information might be collected from or how it might be used as per the rest of us. M -----Original Message----- From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 11:04 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Roland Perry Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] "Metadata" Can Tell the Government More About You Than the Content of Your Phonecalls On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <1b8e01ce682a$0b86c5a0$229450e0$@gmail.com>, at 07:34:51 on > Thu, > 13 Jun 2013, michael gurstein writes > >> The government has sought to "reassure" us that it is only tracking >> "metadata" such as the time and place of the calls, and not the >> actual content of the calls. >> >> But technology experts say that "metadata" can be more revealing than >> the content of your actual phone calls. > > > This is as unsurprising a revelation as the defecation habits of bears. > > It's been recognised in UK surveillance law for over a decade now, > with the acknowledgement that while you can't fail to identify which > website someone went to (as traffic data) ISPs should not identify > which page of the website was accessed. [I helped draft the paragraph > concerned, maybe the first time a justice department minister has > hosted a meeting for someone clutching an rfc]. > > So, for example, the authorities could tell (by making appropriate > requests) that I went to a garden shop's website, but aren't supposed > to be told if I looked at fertilizer (some of which can be used to > make bombs) or geraniums (which can't). > > This (the restriction) might be of more practical importance if I went > to a search engine site, where the results of the search should be out > of bounds, but not any subsequent access of a site (and just the site, > not the page) the search engine found. on a related note, this useful article in the Economist: http://preview.tinyurl.com/m2eghts -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 18:52:28 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 10:52:28 +1200 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as IGC. Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: > From: Marianne Franklin > Date: June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 > To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > Subject: [IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? > > Dear All > > The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on the Human Rights Council statement. > > It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible between today and Monday would support the efforts of our colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. > > Best wishes > MF > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ginger at paque.net Fri Jun 14 18:58:38 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:58:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I support endorsing it as IGC. Thanks to all. gp On 14 June 2013 17:52, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as > IGC. > > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Marianne Franklin > *Date:* June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 > *To:* "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < > irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> > *Subject:* *[IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to Congress > - IRP Coalition endorsement?* > > Dear All**** > > ** ** > > The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. **** > > ** ** > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/**** > > ** ** > > It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on > the Human Rights Council statement. **** > > ** ** > > It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could > indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible > between today and Monday would support the efforts of our > colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. **** > > ** ** > > Best wishes**** > > MF**** > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 19:58:59 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 18:58:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=C3=A9tnico?= Message-ID: ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se debe permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra su libre participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el debates en esta lista. Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como del tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista personas altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun quede en algunos rasgos de segregación racial *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/14 McTim > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization > > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to belittle > and > > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the > > objective of our activities here. > > > > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to > describe > > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or > > other characteristics. > > > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour > > from the list. > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the least of > the offenders. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 20:05:37 2013 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:05:37 -0300 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: I support the endorsement too. Em 14/06/2013 19:59, "Ginger Paque" escreveu: > I support endorsing it as IGC. > Thanks to all. gp > > > On 14 June 2013 17:52, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as >> IGC. >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From:* Marianne Franklin >> *Date:* June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 >> *To:* "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> >> *Subject:* *[IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to >> Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement?* >> >> Dear All**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. *** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on >> the Human Rights Council statement. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could >> indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible >> between today and Monday would support the efforts of our >> colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best wishes**** >> >> MF**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 20:09:25 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:09:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ [with IGC coordinator hat on] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference below. If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. Greetings, Norbert -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and telecommunications surveillance Members of US Congress: We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be participating in these practices.[2] The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is even more alarming.[4] The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and protection of the human rights of people around the world. It is also notable that the United States government supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under international human rights law and full respect for human rights must be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the moral credibility of the country within the global community that fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide worldwide services. On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to express their concerns about the compliance of the current national surveillance program with domestic law.[9] We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into due consideration. We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further call on the US Congress to establish protections for government whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The results of this panel should be broadly published. [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ [4] (A/HRC/23/40) [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa [8] (A/HRC/23/40) [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in this regard: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 20:17:36 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 20:17:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > > ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se debe > permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). > Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra su libre > participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el debates en esta lista. > > Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como del > tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. > > Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista personas > altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun quede en algunos > rasgos de segregación racial Hola, Creo que han entendido mal las observaciones formuladas por Suresh, que es también de los países en desarrollo. Creo que lo que estaba diciendo es que hay algunas personas en la lista que pretenden hablar en nombre de los países en desarrollo, pero en esta lista, no hay representación, sólo hablamos de nosotros mismos. Saludos, English version: McTim Hi, I think you have misunderstood the comments made by suresh, who is also from the developing world. I think what he was saying is that there are some people on the list who purport to speak for the developing world, but on this list, there is no representation, we only speak for ourselves. Regards, McTim > > > > > > Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche > Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo > > > 2013/6/14 McTim >> >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization >> > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to belittle >> > and >> > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the >> > objective of our activities here. >> > >> > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to >> > describe >> > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or >> > other characteristics. >> > >> > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour >> > from the list. >> >> >> I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if >> people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. >> >> >> You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the least of >> the offenders. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Jun 14 21:05:05 2013 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 01:05:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>, Message-ID: <77A59FC9477004489D44DE7FC6840E7B224A48@SUEX10-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> + 1 Lee ________________________________ From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro [salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 6:52 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? Dear All, I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as IGC. Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Marianne Franklin > Date: June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" > Subject: [IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? Dear All The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on the Human Rights Council statement. It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible between today and Monday would support the efforts of our colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. Best wishes MF _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 21:16:07 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:16:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> McTim wrote: > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. Some remarks have been devoid of any substantive content, while others point (even if somewhat imprecisely) to real differences in perspective and interests. A mapping exercise in regard to these different perspectives and interests might be helpful - provided that we are able to agree on the basic premise that everyone has the right to make their own decision on what perspective they choose to adopt. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.igcaucus.org To be removed from the list, visit: http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing For all other list information and functions, see: http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: http://www.igcaucus.org/ Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 14 21:47:54 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:17:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet In-Reply-To: <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f458453c9.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Thanks for that comment but our mutual friend has self identified himself using that term in numerous emails sent to this list --srs (htc one x) On 14 June 2013 9:35:18 PM "michael gurstein" wrote: > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to belittle and > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the > objective of our activities here. > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to describe > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or > other characteristics. > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour > from the list. We can and in the past have had spirited dispute and > discussion without resorting to this type of activity. > > (And if any of my interventions in the past could be interpreted as having > had the character of the above I retrospectively apologize and will most > certainly endeavour to not to do so in the future. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Carlos A. Afonso > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 11:46 AM > To: McTim > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Diego Rafael Canabarro > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet > > Ah, logic... > > OK, McTim, Diego is trying to understand the concept Suresh employs to > characterize someone among us, not to discover whether we have one among > ourselves... :) > > --c.a. > > On 06/14/2013 11:42 AM, McTim wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Diego Rafael Canabarro > wrote: > >> That concept is so fuzzy (and demeaning) that one might also include > former President of Brazil, Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The thirdworldist > intellectual who conducted the telecom privatization in > Brazil. > > > > What suresh actually said was "our resident eminent thirdworldist" > > > > meaning on this list. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Fri Jun 14 21:53:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 03:53:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614114606.35b021e9@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130615035318.7df360ef@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Nobert, the example of offline purchase is again invalid in the DRM > context. Anything you buy online will always leave a usable trail - > credit/debit cards, bank transactions, any other means. In the absence of DRM, it is at least possible for say me to buy it on behalf of someone who lives in a country where it is dangerous to be known to possess the (electronic or physical) asset. > As for CDM not working on your platform of choice - this is like the > Xbox game example right...? I like a racing game by the cover and > choose to buy it only to find I don't have the system required to > play it. I have the resources and capability to install the system > that will let me play it, but I *choose* not to for whatever reason > so the game (or whatever) becomes useless to me. Now this is a case > for the jury but IMHO it's just a poor assessment of usage > feasibility before purchase. That is not the point that I was trying to make. I was talking about the usefulness of Free Software operating system platforms deteriorating when content (that is typically accessed by means of general purpose PCs) can be accessed on all general purpose PCs except for those where a Free Software operating system platform is used. Now some people would think that when the choice is between the profits of the “copyright industry” (Hollywood and others with similar business models) being diminished and the viability of Free Software operating systems for general purpose PCs being destroyed, the “copyright industry” profits are more important. I disagree with them. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 22:50:06 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:20:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Why HTML5 #DRM is dangerous for Free Software (was Draft Statement...) In-Reply-To: <20130615035318.7df360ef@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130613022930.765e0f6c@quill.bollow.ch> <20130613193240.5583aa87@quill.bollow.ch> <20130614114606.35b021e9@quill.bollow.ch> <20130615035318.7df360ef@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: In the absence of DRM, it is at least possible for say me to buy it > on behalf of someone who lives in a country where it is dangerous > to be known to possess the (electronic or physical) asset. > Agreed, this is possible - however unlikely - but possible. It's equally possible to purchase offline and hand it to the person, and as with any online utility there are 'brokers' who will download it for you - they exist everywhere, and the risk is theirs to bear. However yes with DRM it may or may not be possible to use the product by the intended device - so OK, that's there. How many people would want to do this with today's electronic surveillance is a different matter, but yes it's possible to make a purchase and then 'share' it (which would be so wrong even under current "*not for broadcast or distribution*" copyright thingies, again that's a different argument I don't want to get into here). > > That is not the point that I was trying to make. I was talking about > the usefulness of Free Software operating system platforms > deteriorating when content (that is typically accessed by means of > general purpose PCs) can be accessed on all general purpose PCs except > for those where a Free Software operating system platform is used. > This looks like a 1% probability case. It's very unlikely or even impossible that something so vital to the movie-watching (say) of the general populous would not be developed or at least 'ripped' and applied to a linux system... It's far more likely that this will be out on a linux box even before DRM's fate is decided. But yes in surety terms this does pose a risk, you're right. > Now some people would think that when the choice is between the profits > of the “copyright industry” (Hollywood and others with similar business > models) being diminished and the viability of Free Software operating > systems for general purpose PCs being destroyed, the “copyright > industry” profits are more important. I disagree with them. Ok now this I totally don't get - it makes FSO users look like software pirates. I would tend to disagree with *both* sides in this argument :) -C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 22:57:29 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:27:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: +1 On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 4:28 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I support endorsing it as IGC. > Thanks to all. gp > > > On 14 June 2013 17:52, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as >> IGC. >> >> Sala >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> *From:* Marianne Franklin >> *Date:* June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 >> *To:* "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" < >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org> >> *Subject:* *[IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to >> Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement?* >> >> Dear All**** >> >> ** ** >> >> The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. *** >> * >> >> ** ** >> >> http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/**** >> >> ** ** >> >> It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on >> the Human Rights Council statement. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could >> indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible >> between today and Monday would support the efforts of our >> colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Best wishes**** >> >> MF**** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IRP mailing list >> IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 22:55:45 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:25:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) here so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) Thanks, C On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > McTim wrote: > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > Some remarks have been devoid of any substantive content, while others > point (even if somewhat imprecisely) to real differences in perspective > and interests. > > A mapping exercise in regard to these different perspectives and > interests might be helpful - provided that we are able to agree on the > basic premise that everyone has the right to make their own decision on > what perspective they choose to adopt. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 14 23:02:52 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:32:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Noting Jose's message here in English for those who're unable to read/use a translator *"Is this practicing ethnic racism? Such attacks should not be allowed on this list (or any other). It only serves to belittle and intimidate the person, and it detracts from their free membership participation in discussions and debates on this list. I'm originally from a developing country, also known as the Third World, and I am proud of my ethnicity and my home. It strikes me that as members of this list highly prepared, cognitively and culturally still remains in some aspects of racial segregation"* FYI Jose fair few of us are from what you'd call a "third world" or "developing" country. So when a smiley like ":)" is used next to the term it's because it's usually intended as a joke, not as a serious insult/racism. Best, Chaitanya On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:28 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche wrote: > > ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se debe > permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). > Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra su > libre participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el debates en esta > lista. > > Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como del > tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. > > Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista personas > altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun quede en algunos > rasgos de segregación racial > > > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/6/14 McTim > >> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein >> wrote: >> > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized attack/characterization >> > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves to >> belittle and >> > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which should be the >> > objective of our activities here. >> > >> > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or how to >> describe >> > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their physical or >> > other characteristics. >> > >> > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type of behaviour >> > from the list. >> >> >> I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if >> people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. >> >> >> You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the least of >> the offenders. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From pimienta at funredes.org Fri Jun 14 22:40:54 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:40:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Mc Tim, >I think you have misunderstood the comments made by suresh, who is >also from the developing world. I think what he was saying is that >there are some people on the list who purport to speak for the >developing world, but on this list, there is no representation, we >only speak for ourselves. Then you should leave Suresh speaks for himself. I definitively have not read his statement as you (representation was not at all the issue) and I may not be the only one beyond Mike. As for >we could get a lot more done if people didn't try to divide us with >first vs third world rhetoric. I am a peson from the North who now live in the South for some 25 years, and I disagree with your statement. When focusing ICT4D and probably also Internet governance they are many issues which are not treated the same way in the South as in the North (if only a question of very different priority scheme). There is a South sensitivity and this is not a question of dividing the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a different perspective driven by quite different contexts. Some people like Suresh leave in the South and are reluctant to acknowledge that difference of perspective; this is their perfect right; however I do not think they have the right to impose their view to the rest of us (who probably are the majority in that very case). Cordialmente, Daniel -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Fri Jun 14 23:33:05 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:03:05 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=C3=A9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13f45e4a131.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> As I possibly have said before, I live in the south and disagree with riaz's perspective which by the way happens to be suffused with the uniquely north and usa based philosophy of libertarianism in its original form There is no derogation or racism implied when I refer to riaz by a term that he has often used to describe himself. If I actually wanted or intended to be pejorative there is a wide selection of terms that I would have used but not 'third worldist', --srs (htc one x) On 15 June 2013 8:10:54 AM Daniel Pimienta wrote: > Dear Mc Tim, > > >I think you have misunderstood the comments made by suresh, who is > >also from the developing world. I think what he was saying is that > >there are some people on the list who purport to speak for the > >developing world, but on this list, there is no representation, we > >only speak for ourselves. > > Then you should leave Suresh speaks for himself. > I definitively have not read his statement as you (representation was not > at all the issue) and I may not be the only one beyond Mike. > > As for > >we could get a lot more done if people didn't try to divide us with first > vs third world rhetoric. > > I am a peson from the North who now live in the South for some 25 years, > and I disagree > with your statement. When focusing ICT4D and probably also Internet > governance they are > many issues which are not treated the same way in the South as in the North > (if only a question > of very different priority scheme). There is a South sensitivity and this > is not a question of > dividing the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a > different perspective driven by > quite different contexts. > > Some people like Suresh leave in the South and are reluctant to acknowledge > that difference of perspective; > this is their perfect right; however I do not think they have the right to > impose their view to the rest of us > (who probably are the majority in that very case). > > Cordialmente, > Daniel > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Fri Jun 14 23:37:55 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 23:37:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130614233755.20863na939ojbekz@www.ciencitec.com> Mr. Norbert: I support this letter, it is important that everyone know. thanks José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Norbert Bollow escribió: >> > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International > civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference > below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it > is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the > proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there > are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- > > Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and > telecommunications surveillance > > Members of US Congress: > > We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the > world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by > the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US > authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance > activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the > Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many > US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be > participating in these practices.[2] > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global > digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital > age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts > in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step > in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and > transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of > a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance > by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human > dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of > thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center > of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise > serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The > inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign > surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is > even more alarming.[4] > > The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights > online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears > to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same > government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the > global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is > signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage > in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its > policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what > happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US > will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and > protection of the human rights of people around the world. > > It is also notable that the United States government supported the > United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms > that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected > online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days > ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that > drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that > when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be > done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under > international human rights law and full respect for human rights must > be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest > practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation > of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence > between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the > moral credibility of the country within the global community that > fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally > impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide > worldwide services. > > On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to > raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did > so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special > Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank > La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note > that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to > express their concerns about the compliance of the current national > surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > > We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing > of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US > citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to > violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are > universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for > all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that > current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into > due consideration. > > We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States > Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent > the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based > surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the > FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to > publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further > call on the US Congress to establish protections for government > whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately > informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human > rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join > Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with > subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current > practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections > for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The > results of this panel should be broadly published. > > [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, > https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ > and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > > [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube, and Apple: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > > [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > > [4] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > > [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > > [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > > [8] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national > security request data > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > > [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and > Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic > of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in > this regard: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 01:57:09 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 22:57:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Norbert,  Should we also address the same concern with UN General Assembly? B/R Imran >________________________________ > From: Norbert Bollow >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2013, 5:09 >Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress > > >> > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > >[with IGC coordinator hat on] > >FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > >We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > >Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >below. > >If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > >If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it >is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > >** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > >If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > >NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there >are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > >Greetings, >Norbert > >-- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- > >Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >telecommunications surveillance > >Members of US Congress: > >We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the >world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by >the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the >Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >participating in these practices.[2] > >The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts >in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step >in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of >a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center >of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The >inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >even more alarming.[4] > >The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears >to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the >global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >protection of the human rights of people around the world. > >It is also notable that the United States government supported the >United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days >ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation >of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >moral credibility of the country within the global community that >fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >worldwide services. > >On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did >so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank >La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of >communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > >We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ >statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing >of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that >current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >due consideration. > >We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to >publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance >Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately >informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join >Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with >subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current >practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections >for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >results of this panel should be broadly published. > >[1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > >[2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, >YouTube, and Apple: >http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > >[3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > >[4] (A/HRC/23/40) > >[5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > >[6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > >[7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > >[8] (A/HRC/23/40) > >[9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national >security request data >http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > >[10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > >[11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic >of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >this regard: >http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. > >____________________________________________________________ >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Sat Jun 15 02:42:49 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:42:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another letter to Congress Message-ID: <51BC0CE9.9060304@panamo.eu> Mozilla with several US organizations and individuals : https://optin.stopwatching.us/ @+, Best, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 15 02:58:50 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:28:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <51BC10AA.9020909@itforchange.net> On Saturday 15 June 2013 11:27 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Norbert, > Should we also address the same concern with UN General Assembly? Interesting question.... That was my initial feeling about writing to US Congress.... I dont feel that it feels accountable to non US citizens, and all the pronoucements from the US post PRISM disclosures confirm that.... We should appeal to those who are show some feeling of accountability to us... At the global stage, that is the UN, and UN GA.... I think we must write to them. That is also my problem with the ISOC statement in the issue, they speak about global principles on privacy etc developed at plurilateral forums - most of the rich nations - which exclude most of us... They speak of the need of a global dialogue that should take place on he issue (and I agree) but dont say where it should take place. I reckon, if I direct this question to them they'd say, the IGF. Which is very well. But the next question is, subsequent to such a dialogue, and as an outcome of it, where should development of global principles for privacy etc should take place - to which I would almost certainly not obtain any reply... Although I am willing to be proved wrong - by ISOC or any of its sympathisers here. I dont agree with statements that may merely do what seem to have become difficult to ignore, without clear political direct for the corresponding required political actions... This is the doctrine of political responsibility that we, at my organisation, take really seriously, and we think all civil society should. We have here not to make just statements, we are here to change the world in a manner that it becomes more fair to those who are marginalised at present. I think we should all begin to act less like second class US citizens, begging for at least some recognition, and behave like global citizens of a globally democratic polity. The biggest lession from the recent NSA disclosures is this: unaccountable power will also certianly go corrupt..... Make sure anyone who exercises global power - as the US does to a extremely momentous extent - must be made 'globally' accountable. And any such accountability can only be exercised through a mechanism where everyone from across the globe is equally represented... Lets write to the UN assembly too... parminder > B/R > Imran > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Norbert Bollow > *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Sent:* Saturday, 15 June 2013, 5:09 > *Subject:* [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: > International civil society letter to Congress > > > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International > civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference > below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this > letter, it > is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the > proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If > there > are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- text proposed for endorsement > follows-------------------------------- > > Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and > telecommunications surveillance > > Members of US Congress: > > We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the > world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by > the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US > authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance > activities available to other States, including the United > Kingdom, the > Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many > US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be > participating in these practices.[2] > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global > digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital > age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts > in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] > Any step > in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and > transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The > situation of > a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance > by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human > dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of > thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the > center > of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise > serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The > inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign > surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is > even more alarming.[4] > > The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights > online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears > to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same > government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions > on the > global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is > signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage > in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its > policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what > happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US > will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and > protection of the human rights of people around the world. > > It is also notable that the United States government supported the > United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms > that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected > online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days > ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that > drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that > when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be > done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under > international human rights law and full respect for human rights must > be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest > practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation > of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence > between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the > moral credibility of the country within the global community that > fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally > impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide > worldwide services. > > On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to > raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] > We did > so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special > Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. > Frank > La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state > surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note > that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to > express their concerns about the compliance of the current national > surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > > We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word > on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The > focusing > of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US > citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to > violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are > universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for > all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that > current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into > due consideration. > > We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States > Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent > the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based > surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the > FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected > companies to > publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance > Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further > call on the US Congress to establish protections for government > whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately > informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human > rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also > join > Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel > with > subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine > current > practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate > protections > for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The > results of this panel should be broadly published. > > [1] > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, > https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ > and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > > [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube, and Apple: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > > [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > > [4] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > > [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > > [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > > [8] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more > national > security request data > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > > [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and > Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the > topic > of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in > this regard: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Sat Jun 15 03:11:23 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:11:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BC10AA.9020909@itforchange.net> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <51BC10AA.9020909@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51BC139B.5030009@panamo.eu> +1 Even ask ONU to create a special court for digital crimes. @+, Dom -- Dominique Lacroix http://reseaux.blog.lemonde.fr Société européenne de l'Internet http://www.ies-france.eu +33 (0)6 63 24 39 14 Le 15/06/13 08:58, parminder a écrit : > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 11:27 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> Dear Norbert, >> Should we also address the same concern with UN General Assembly? > > Interesting question.... That was my initial feeling about writing to > US Congress.... I dont feel that it feels accountable to non US > citizens, and all the pronoucements from the US post PRISM disclosures > confirm that.... We should appeal to those who are show some feeling > of accountability to us... At the global stage, that is the UN, and UN > GA.... I think we must write to them. > > That is also my problem with the ISOC statement in the issue, they > speak about global principles on privacy etc developed at plurilateral > forums - most of the rich nations - which exclude most of us... They > speak of the need of a global dialogue that should take place on he > issue (and I agree) but dont say where it should take place. I reckon, > if I direct this question to them they'd say, the IGF. Which is very > well. But the next question is, subsequent to such a dialogue, and as > an outcome of it, where should development of global principles for > privacy etc should take place - to which I would almost certainly not > obtain any reply... Although I am willing to be proved wrong - by ISOC > or any of its sympathisers here. > > I dont agree with statements that may merely do what seem to have > become difficult to ignore, without clear political direct for the > corresponding required political actions... This is the doctrine of > political responsibility that we, at my organisation, take really > seriously, and we think all civil society should. We have here not to > make just statements, we are here to change the world in a manner that > it becomes more fair to those who are marginalised at present. > > I think we should all begin to act less like second class US citizens, > begging for at least some recognition, and behave like global citizens > of a globally democratic polity. The biggest lession from the recent > NSA disclosures is this: unaccountable power will also certianly go > corrupt..... Make sure anyone who exercises global power - as the US > does to a extremely momentous extent - must be made 'globally' > accountable. And any such accountability can only be exercised through > a mechanism where everyone from across the globe is equally represented... > > Lets write to the UN assembly too... > > parminder >> B/R >> Imran >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Norbert Bollow >> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Sent:* Saturday, 15 June 2013, 5:09 >> *Subject:* [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: >> International civil society letter to Congress >> >> > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> >> We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >> civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. >> >> Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >> below. >> >> If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> >> If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this >> letter, it >> is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. >> >> ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** >> >> If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >> proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. >> >> NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: >> If there >> are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- text proposed for endorsement >> follows-------------------------------- >> >> Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >> telecommunications surveillance >> >> Members of US Congress: >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from >> around the >> world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US >> citizens by >> the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >> authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >> activities available to other States, including the United >> Kingdom, the >> Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >> US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >> participating in these practices.[2] >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >> digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >> age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts >> in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] >> Any step >> in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The >> situation of >> a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >> by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >> dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >> thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the >> center >> of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >> serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human >> rights. The >> inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >> surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >> even more alarming.[4] >> >> The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >> online by the US government and the recent allegations of what >> appears >> to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >> government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions >> on the >> global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >> signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >> in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >> policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >> happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >> will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >> protection of the human rights of people around the world. >> >> It is also notable that the United States government supported the >> United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >> that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >> online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few >> days >> ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >> drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >> when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >> done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >> international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >> be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >> practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major >> violation >> of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >> between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >> moral credibility of the country within the global community that >> fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >> impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >> worldwide services. >> >> On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >> raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] >> We did >> so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >> Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. >> Frank >> La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state >> surveillance of >> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the >> human >> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >> that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >> express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >> surveillance program with domestic law.[9] >> >> We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post >> ‘disclosures’ >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no >> access >> obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word >> on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The >> focusing >> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >> citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >> violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >> universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >> all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate >> that >> current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >> due consideration. >> >> We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >> Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >> the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >> surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >> FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected >> companies to >> publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence >> Surveillance >> Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >> call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >> whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is >> adequately >> informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >> rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We >> also join >> Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent >> panel with >> subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine >> current >> practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate >> protections >> for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >> results of this panel should be broadly published. >> >> [1] >> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >> https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >> and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. >> >> [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, >> Skype, >> YouTube, and Apple: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html >> >> [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ >> >> [4] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 >> >> [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ >> >> [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa >> >> [8] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more >> national >> security request data >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ >> >> [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >> Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the >> topic >> of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >> this regard: >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sat Jun 15 03:44:56 2013 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:44:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> Message-ID: <006b01ce699c$3b12b720$b1382560$@benjemaa@planet.tn> I too support that IGC endorse the letter Tijani De : governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] De la part de Marilia Maciel Envoyé : samedi 15 juin 2013 01:06 À : governance at lists.igcaucus.org Objet : Re: [governance] (IGC endorsement)International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? I support the endorsement too. Em 14/06/2013 19:59, "Ginger Paque" escreveu: I support endorsing it as IGC. Thanks to all. gp On 14 June 2013 17:52, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: Dear All, I propose we endorse this as IGC, urgent call for consensus to endorse as IGC. Sala Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Marianne Franklin Date: June 15, 2013, 3:36:08 AM GMT+12:00 To: "irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org" Subject: [IRPCoalition] International civil society letter to Congress - IRP Coalition endorsement? Dear All The link below is the final version of the letter to the US Congress. http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ It seems clear that the IRP Coalition sign up to this; we have done so on the Human Rights Council statement. It has been a very busy couple of days list-wise. Still if people could indicate in the usual way that they support this move. As many as possible between today and Monday would support the efforts of our colleagues/ourselves on Best Bits so thanks in advance. Best wishes MF _______________________________________________ IRP mailing list IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp ____________________________________________________________ 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: 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 05:02:01 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:02:01 +1200 Subject: [governance] 21st Century Statecraft: Joint Statement on U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting In-Reply-To: <1371243984440.380113.222915941.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> References: <1371243984440.380113.222915941.bulletin.usstatebpa@subscriptions.fcg.gov> Message-ID: Dear All, Kindly find the Joint Statement by the Governments of US and Germany and it is good to see reference being made to responsble behaviour on the net etc as far as States are concerned: Joint Statement on U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting Media Note Office of the Spokesperson Washington, DC June 14, 2013 ------------------------------ The text of the following statement was agreed by the Governments of the United States of America and the Federal Republic of Germany on the occasion of the U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting June 10-11, 2013. Begin Text: The Governments of the United States and Germany held a Cyber Bilateral Meeting in Washington, DC on June 10-11, 2013. The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting reinforced our long-standing alliance by highlighting our pre-existing collaboration on many key cyber issues over the course of the last decade and identifying additional areas for awareness and alignment. The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting embodied a “whole-of-government” approach, furthering our cooperation on a wide range of cyber issues and our collaborative engagement on both operational and strategic objectives. Operational objectives include exchanging information on cyber issues of mutual concern and identifying greater cooperation measures on detecting and mitigating cyber incidents, combating cybercrime, developing practical confidence-building measures to reduce risk, and exploring new areas of bilateral cyber defense cooperation. Strategic objectives include affirming common cyber approaches in Internet governance, Internet freedom, and international security; partnering with the private sector to protect critical infrastructure, including through prospective legislation and other frameworks; and pursuing coordination efforts on cyber capacity-building in third countries. The discussions specifically focused on continued and bolstered support for the multi-stakeholder model for Internet governance, particularly as the preparations for Internet Governance Forum 8 in Bali, Indonesia are underway; expanding the Freedom Online Coalition, particularly as Germany joins the coalition just before the next annual meeting in Tunis this month; and the application of norms and responsible state behavior in cyberspace, particularly next steps in light of successful UN Group of Governmental Experts consensus where key governmental experts affirmed the applicability of international law to state behavior in cyberspace. Germany noted its concern in connection with the recent disclosures about U.S. Government surveillance programs. The U.S. referenced statements by the U.S. President and the Director of National Intelligence on this issue and emphasized that such programs are designed to protect the United States and other countries from terrorist and other threats, are consistent with U.S. law, and are subject to strict supervision and oversight by all three branches of the U.S. Government. Both sides recognized that this issue will be the subject of further dialogue. The U.S.-Germany Cyber Bilateral Meeting was hosted by the U.S. Secretary of State’s Coordinator for Cyber Issues, Christopher Painter, and included representatives from the Department of State, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Department of Treasury, and the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Herbert Salber, the Federal Foreign Office’s Commissioner for Security Policy led the German interagency delegation, which included representatives from the Federal Foreign Office, the Federal Ministry of the Interior, the Federal Office for Information Security, the Federal Ministry of Defense, and the Federal Ministry for Economics and Technology. Coordinator Painter and Commissioner Salber agreed to hold the Cyber Bilateral Meeting annually with the next to be held in Berlin in mid-2014. PRN: 2013/0734 ------------------------------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 05:19:19 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:19:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical situation and who we are.I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical localisation and who we are. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow > > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International > civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference > below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it > is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the > proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there > are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- > > Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and > telecommunications surveillance > > Members of US Congress: > > We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the > world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by > the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US > authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance > activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the > Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many > US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be > participating in these practices.[2] > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global > digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital > age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts > in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step > in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and > transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of > a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance > by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human > dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of > thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center > of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise > serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The > inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign > surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is > even more alarming.[4] > > The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights > online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears > to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same > government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the > global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is > signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage > in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its > policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what > happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US > will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and > protection of the human rights of people around the world. > > It is also notable that the United States government supported the > United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms > that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected > online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days > ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that > drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that > when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be > done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under > international human rights law and full respect for human rights must > be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest > practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation > of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence > between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the > moral credibility of the country within the global community that > fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally > impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide > worldwide services. > > On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to > raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did > so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special > Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank > La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note > that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to > express their concerns about the compliance of the current national > surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > > We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing > of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US > citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to > violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are > universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for > all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that > current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into > due consideration. > > We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States > Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent > the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based > surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the > FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to > publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance > Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further > call on the US Congress to establish protections for government > whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately > informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human > rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join > Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with > subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current > practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections > for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The > results of this panel should be broadly published. > > [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, > > https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ > and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > > [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube, and Apple: > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > > [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > > [4] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > > [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > > [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > > [8] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national > security request data > > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > > [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and > Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic > of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in > this regard: > > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf > . > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 05:33:58 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:33:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=C3=A9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> Actually I have been less than constructive and with guidance from good friends have pointed this out. There is a contest of ideas and values, which is all that I am trying to create space for here, which is difficult, but no excuse for me bad behaviour. The contest of ideas need not be expressed so personally, crudely nor in a way that forecloses discussion - none of us are above reproach. So I do not read Suresh's point as racist at all. It is part of the contest. A contest that can be conducted more civilly on my part, which includes abstaining from being provoked. While I will try to be clear and precise, I will try to be more constructive so that we can get to the real politics of the matters at hand... with intellectual diversity, and multiple conceptions of the values that underpin our understanding of the 'good life' that inspires are respective value systems. So while I cannot apologise nor retract my Third World analytic, I can certainly try not to be an ass about it... and as we are in good company I can count on openness and candour from friends to point this out... riaz On 2013/06/15 06:02 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Noting Jose's message here in English for those who're unable to > read/use a translator > /"Is this practicing ethnic racism? Such attacks should not be allowed > on this list (or any other). > > It only serves to belittle and intimidate the person, and it detracts > from their free membership participation in discussions and debates on > this list. > > I'm originally from a developing country, also known as the Third > World, and I am proud of my ethnicity and my home. > > It strikes me that as members of this list highly prepared, > cognitively and culturally still remains in some aspects of racial > segregation"/ > FYI Jose fair few of us are from what you'd call a "third world" or > "developing" country. So when a smiley like ":)" is used next to the > term it's because it's usually intended as a joke, not as a serious > insult/racism. > Best, > Chaitanya > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:28 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche > > wrote: > > > ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se > debe permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). > Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra > su libre participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el > debates en esta lista. > > Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como > del tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. > > Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista > personas altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun > quede en algunos rasgos de segregación racial > > > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/6/14 McTim > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein > > wrote: > > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized > attack/characterization > > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves > to belittle and > > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which > should be the > > objective of our activities here. > > > > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or > how to describe > > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their > physical or > > other characteristics. > > > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type > of behaviour > > from the list. > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the > least of > the offenders. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it > is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Jun 15 05:35:28 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:05:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above > the law. When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one can be above the law.... and there is no global law to constrain the US from doing what it would with the centres and nodes of the Internet which it occupies.... We can though keep talking about the much fancied but meaningless bottom up processes here.... parminder parminder > It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, > prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever > our geographical situation and who we are.I support this statement. > After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. It is a principle > as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly > remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical > localisation and who we are. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > 2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow > > > > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International > civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference > below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this > letter, it > is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the > proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If > there > are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- text proposed for endorsement > follows-------------------------------- > > Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and > telecommunications surveillance > > Members of US Congress: > > We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the > world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by > the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US > authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance > activities available to other States, including the United > Kingdom, the > Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many > US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be > participating in these practices.[2] > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global > digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital > age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts > in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] > Any step > in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and > transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The > situation of > a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance > by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human > dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of > thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the > center > of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise > serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The > inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign > surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is > even more alarming.[4] > > The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights > online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears > to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same > government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions > on the > global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights > articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on > Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is > signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage > in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its > policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what > happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US > will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and > protection of the human rights of people around the world. > > It is also notable that the United States government supported the > United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms > that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected > online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days > ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that > drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that > when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be > done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under > international human rights law and full respect for human rights must > be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest > practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation > of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence > between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the > moral credibility of the country within the global community that > fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally > impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide > worldwide services. > > On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to > raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] > We did > so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special > Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. > Frank > La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state > surveillance of > communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human > rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note > that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to > express their concerns about the compliance of the current national > surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > > We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word > on the > issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The > focusing > of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US > citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to > violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are > universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for > all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that > current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into > due consideration. > > We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States > Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent > the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based > surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the > FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected > companies to > publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance > Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further > call on the US Congress to establish protections for government > whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately > informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human > rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also > join > Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel > with > subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine > current > practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate > protections > for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The > results of this panel should be broadly published. > > [1] > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, > https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ > and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > > [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube, and Apple: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > > [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > > [4] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > > [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > > [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > > [8] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more > national > security request data > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > > [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and > Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the > topic > of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in > this regard: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 06:02:20 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 06:02:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0b9b01ce69af$738d81d0$5aa88570$@gmail.com> +1 BTW, do we need a new consensus process to do this? M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 1:57 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress Dear Norbert, Should we also address the same concern with UN General Assembly? B/R Imran _____ From: Norbert Bollow To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2013, 5:09 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ [with IGC coordinator hat on] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference below. If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. Greetings, Norbert -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and telecommunications surveillance Members of US Congress: We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be participating in these practices.[2] The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is even more alarming.[4] The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and protection of the human rights of people around the world. It is also notable that the United States government supported the United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under international human rights law and full respect for human rights must be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the moral credibility of the country within the global community that fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide worldwide services. On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to express their concerns about the compliance of the current national surveillance program with domestic law.[9] We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into due consideration. We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further call on the US Congress to establish protections for government whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The results of this panel should be broadly published. [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ [4] (A/HRC/23/40) [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa [8] (A/HRC/23/40) [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national security request data http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in this regard: http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sat Jun 15 06:13:35 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:43:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=C3=A9tnico?= In-Reply-To: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> References: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13f47534b92.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Thanks riaz and believe me, where I can find common ground i certainly will --srs (htc one x) On 15 June 2013 3:03:58 PM Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Actually I have been less than constructive and with guidance from good > friends have pointed this out. There is a contest of ideas and values, > which is all that I am trying to create space for here, which is difficult, > but no excuse for me bad behaviour. > > The contest of ideas need not be expressed so personally, crudely nor in a > way that forecloses discussion - none of us are above reproach. So I do not > read Suresh's point as racist at all. It is part of the contest. A contest > that can be conducted more civilly on my part, which includes abstaining > from being provoked. > > While I will try to be clear and precise, I will try to be more > constructive so that we can get to the real politics of the matters at > hand... with intellectual diversity, and multiple conceptions of the values > that underpin our understanding of the 'good life' that inspires are > respective value systems. > > So while I cannot apologise nor retract my Third World analytic, I can > certainly try not to be an ass about it... and as we are in good company I > can count on openness and candour from friends to point this out... > > riaz > On 2013/06/15 06:02 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > Noting Jose's message here in English for those who're unable to read/use > a translator > > /"Is this practicing ethnic racism? Such attacks should not be allowed on > this list (or any other). > > > > It only serves to belittle and intimidate the person, and it detracts > from their free membership participation in discussions and debates on this > list. > > > > I'm originally from a developing country, also known as the Third World, > and I am proud of my ethnicity and my home. > > > > It strikes me that as members of this list highly prepared, cognitively > and culturally still remains in some aspects of racial segregation"/ > > FYI Jose fair few of us are from what you'd call a "third world" or > "developing" country. So when a smiley like ":)" is used next to the term > it's because it's usually intended as a joke, not as a serious insult/racism. > > Best, > > Chaitanya > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:28 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche > > wrote: > > > > > > ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se > > debe permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). > > Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra > > su libre participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el > > debates en esta lista. > > > > Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como > > del tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. > > > > Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista > > personas altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun > > quede en algunos rasgos de segregación racial > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > > > > 2013/6/14 McTim > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein > > > wrote: > > > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized > > attack/characterization > > > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves > > to belittle and > > > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which > > should be the > > > objective of our activities here. > > > > > > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or > > how to describe > > > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their > > physical or > > > other characteristics. > > > > > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type > > of behaviour > > > from the list. > > > > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > > > > You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the > > least of > > the offenders. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it > > is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From b.schombe at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 06:23:34 2013 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:23:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: You're right Parminder but when we make the rules of conduct in connection with the observance of human rights, we must all be considered. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2013/6/15 parminder > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the > law. > > > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one can be > above the law.... and there is no global law to constrain the US from doing > what it would with the centres and nodes of the Internet which it > occupies.... We can though keep talking about the much fancied but > meaningless bottom up processes here.... parminder > > parminder > > It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe > must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical > situation and who we are.I support this statement. After all, no one can > pretend to be above the law. It is a principle as old as democracy in > advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and > reflexes whatever our geographical localisation and who we are. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > 2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow > >> > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> >> We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >> civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. >> >> Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >> below. >> >> If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> >> If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it >> is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. >> >> ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** >> >> If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >> proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. >> >> NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there >> are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- >> >> Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >> telecommunications surveillance >> >> Members of US Congress: >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the >> world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by >> the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >> authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >> activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the >> Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >> US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >> participating in these practices.[2] >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >> digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >> age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts >> in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step >> in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of >> a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >> by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >> dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >> thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center >> of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >> serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The >> inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >> surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >> even more alarming.[4] >> >> The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >> online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears >> to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >> government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the >> global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >> signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >> in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >> policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >> happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >> will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >> protection of the human rights of people around the world. >> >> It is also notable that the United States government supported the >> United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >> that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >> online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days >> ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >> drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >> when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >> done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >> international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >> be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >> practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation >> of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >> between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >> moral credibility of the country within the global community that >> fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >> impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >> worldwide services. >> >> On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >> raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did >> so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >> Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank >> La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of >> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >> that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >> express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >> surveillance program with domestic law.[9] >> >> We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing >> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >> citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >> violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >> universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >> all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that >> current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >> due consideration. >> >> We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >> Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >> the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >> surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >> FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to >> publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance >> Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >> call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >> whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately >> informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >> rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join >> Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with >> subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current >> practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections >> for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >> results of this panel should be broadly published. >> >> [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >> >> https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >> and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. >> >> [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, >> YouTube, and Apple: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html >> >> [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ >> >> [4] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 >> >> [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ >> >> [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa >> >> [8] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national >> security request data >> >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ >> >> [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >> Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic >> of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >> this regard: >> >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf >> . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From riaz.tayob at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 06:25:23 2013 From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:25:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51BC4113.1030708@gmail.com> For me going forward, the issue is the ability of the US to go forward at simultaneously as a democracy and human rights defender and promoter, as well as a 'violator' of it. The US state is one of the most remarkable ones in the ability to handle contradictions of this nature... there are numerous examples of this... This dualistic politics is what will be interesting. It is what makes sensible for me the protection of American's 'rights' over those of foreigners - as the discourse is unfolding. From my Third World perspective, this would be the frame of analysis. Allowing us to see the consequences of the dichotomies, and contradictions in this process... Riaz On 2013/06/15 12:35 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >> I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above >> the law. > > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one > can be above the law.... and there is no global law to constrain the > US from doing what it would with the centres and nodes of the Internet > which it occupies.... We can though keep talking about the much > fancied but meaningless bottom up processes here.... parminder > > parminder >> It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, >> prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever >> our geographical situation and who we are.I support this statement. >> After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. It is a principle >> as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must >> constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical >> localisation and who we are. >> >> SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> >> Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >> email : b.schombe at gmail.com >> skype : b.schombe >> blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >> Site Web : www.ticafrica.net >> >> >> >> >> 2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow > >> >> > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> >> We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >> civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. >> >> Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >> below. >> >> If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> >> If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this >> letter, it >> is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. >> >> ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** >> >> If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >> proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. >> >> NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: >> If there >> are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- text proposed for endorsement >> follows-------------------------------- >> >> Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >> telecommunications surveillance >> >> Members of US Congress: >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from >> around the >> world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US >> citizens by >> the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >> authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >> activities available to other States, including the United >> Kingdom, the >> Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >> US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >> participating in these practices.[2] >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >> digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >> age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental >> shifts >> in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] >> Any step >> in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The >> situation of >> a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >> by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >> dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >> thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the >> center >> of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >> serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human >> rights. The >> inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >> surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >> even more alarming.[4] >> >> The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >> online by the US government and the recent allegations of what >> appears >> to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >> government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions >> on the >> global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >> signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >> in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >> policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >> happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >> will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >> protection of the human rights of people around the world. >> >> It is also notable that the United States government supported the >> United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >> that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >> online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few >> days >> ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >> drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >> when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >> done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >> international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >> be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >> practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major >> violation >> of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >> between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >> moral credibility of the country within the global community that >> fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >> impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >> worldwide services. >> >> On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >> raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] >> We did >> so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >> Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. >> Frank >> La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state >> surveillance of >> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the >> human >> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >> that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >> express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >> surveillance program with domestic law.[9] >> >> We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post >> ‘disclosures’ >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no >> access >> obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word >> on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The >> focusing >> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >> citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >> violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >> universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >> all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate >> that >> current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >> due consideration. >> >> We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >> Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >> the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >> surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >> FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected >> companies to >> publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence >> Surveillance >> Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >> call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >> whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is >> adequately >> informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >> rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We >> also join >> Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent >> panel with >> subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine >> current >> practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate >> protections >> for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >> results of this panel should be broadly published. >> >> [1] >> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >> https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >> and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. >> >> [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, >> Skype, >> YouTube, and Apple: >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html >> >> [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ >> >> [4] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 >> >> [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ >> >> [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa >> >> [8] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more >> national >> security request data >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ >> >> [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >> Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the >> topic >> of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >> this regard: >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 06:37:02 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:07:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> References: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote: > as we are in good company I can count on openness and candour from friends > to point this out... > +1, and am sure this applies to *everyone *on this list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 07:05:52 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:05:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky Message-ID: While we have been busy navel gazing about the relative evilness of gov vs corporatism, some folks have been busy working on Universal Access methods: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcw6j-QWGMo -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 07:17:29 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:17:29 +1200 Subject: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks McTim: It gets launched in Christchurch, New Zealand tomorrow: (Source: Andrew Erbs) Sunday 16th June 2013, 10am-2pm NZST @ Air Force Museum, 45 Harvard Ave, Wigram, Wigram Park 8140, New Zealand http://www.google.com/loon/ WHAT IS PROJECT LOON? Many of us think of the Internet as a global community. But two-thirds of the world’s population does not yet have Internet access. Project Loon is a network of balloons traveling on the edge of space, designed to connect people in rural and remote areas, help fill coverage gaps, and bring people back online after disasters. THE TECHNOLOGY Project Loon balloons float in the stratosphere, twice as high as airplanes and the weather. They are carried around the Earth by winds and they can be steered by rising or descending to an altitude with winds moving in the desired direction. People connect to the balloon network using a special Internet antenna attached to their building. The signal bounces from balloon to balloon, then to the global Internet back on Earth. THE PILOT TEST Project Loon starts in June 2013 with an experimental pilot in New Zealand. A small group of Project Loon pioneers will test the technology in Christchurch and Canterbury. HOW LOON MOVES NAVIGATING WITH THE WIND Project Loon balloons travel around 20 km above the Earth’s surface in the stratosphere. Winds in the stratosphere are generally steady and slow-moving at between 5 and 20 mph, and each layer of wind varies in direction and magnitude. Project Loon uses software algorithms to determine where its balloons need to go, then moves each one into a layer of wind blowing in the right direction. By moving with the wind, the balloons can be arranged to form one large communications network. STRATOSPHERE Situated between 10 km and 60 km altitude on the edge of space, the stratosphere is named after the different strata, or layers, of wind within it. But the extreme altitude also presents unique engineering challenges: air pressure is 1% of that at sea level, temperatures hover around -50°C, and a thinner atmosphere offers less protection from the UV radiation and temperature swings caused by the sun’s rays. By carefully designing the balloon envelope to withstand these conditions, Project Loon is able to take advantage of the steady stratospheric winds, and remain well above weather events, wildlife and airplanes. HOW LOON IS DESIGNED ENVELOPE The balloon envelope is the name for the inflatable part of the balloon. Project Loon’s balloon envelopes are made from sheets of polyethylene plastic and stand fifteen meters wide by twelve meters tall when fully inflated. They are specially constructed for use in superpressure balloons, which are longer-lasting than weather balloons because they can withstand higher pressure from the air inside when the balloons reach float altitude. A parachute attached to the top of the envelope allows for a controlled descent and landing whenever a balloon is ready to be taken out of service. SOLAR PANELS Each unit’s electronics are powered by an array of solar panels that sits between the envelope and the hardware. In full sun, these panels produce 100 Watts of power - enough to keep the unit running while also charging a battery for use at night. By moving with the wind and charging in the sun, Project Loon is able to power itself using only renewable energy sources. EQUIPMENT A small box containing the balloon’s electronic equipment hangs underneath the inflated envelope, like the basket that is carried by a hot air balloon. This box contains circuit boards that control the system, radio antennas to communicate with other balloons and with Internet antennas on the ground, and batteries to store solar power so the balloons can operate during the night. HOW LOON CONNECTS Each balloon can provide connectivity to a ground area about 40 km in diameter at speeds comparable to 3G. For balloon-to-balloon and balloon-to-ground communications, the balloons use antennas equipped with specialized radio frequency technology. Project Loon currently uses ISM bands (specifically 2.4 and 5.8 GHz bands) that are available for anyone to use. WHERE LOON IS GOING The Project Loon pilot test begins June 2013 on the 40th parallel south. Thirty balloons, launched from New Zealand’s South Island, will beam Internet to a small group of pilot testers. The experience of these pilot testers will be used to refine the technology and shape the next phase of Project Loon. On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:05 PM, McTim wrote: > While we have been busy navel gazing about the relative evilness of > gov vs corporatism, some folks have been busy working on Universal > Access methods: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcw6j-QWGMo > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 07:17:33 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 07:17:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] Why The Tech Industry Should Be Furious About NSA's Over Surveillance In-Reply-To: <9C6BC397-269F-4CBE-B9EC-0E93861BC55F@warpspeed.com> References: <9C6BC397-269F-4CBE-B9EC-0E93861BC55F@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <0beb01ce69b9$f52bfcd0$df83f670$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 6:57 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Why The Tech Industry Should Be Furious About NSA's Over Surveillance Why The Tech Industry Should Be Furious About NSA's Over Surveillance from the it'll-hit-their-bottom-lines dept By Mike Masnick June 14 2013 We've already pointed out how some tech companies, including Yahoo!, Google and Twitter havefought back against overly intrusive attempts at government surveillance (though, they often lose), and there's been some discussion about how these companies are fighting to protect their users' privacy. There's a further reason why all of the tech industry should be speaking out against NSA surveillance. Beyond just being the right thing to do to protect your users' privacy, it's likely that it also improves their bottom line. We're already starting to see the fallout from the revelations of the NSA being able to scoop up data from various tech companies, and it's going to be harmful to their revenue. Right after the initial NSA leaks came out, David Kirkpatrick quickly wrote about how the Obama administration appeared to be sacrificing the US internet industry in a weak attempt at trying to increase security (despite no evidence that it's actually done that). The global implications of the NSA spying aren't hard to figure out -- especially when looking at how many people around the globe use these services: It's quite possible that Obama has undermined the effectiveness and attractiveness for political speech and protest of what have been the most potent communications tools for activism in history. Political and commercial opponents of the U.S. in every country as well as governments themselves will likely alert citizens to the potential that U.S. companies could pass their info back to US authorities. This will seriously conflict with these companies' aim to maintain their platforms as neutral global environments. It could dramatically slow their global growth. [....] Do we really want to impair such powerful tools for spreading dialogue, political discourse, and U.S. values? Is it worthwhile to impair the extraordinary financial and commercial success of these great flagships for the American economy? Does Obama want Facebook et al just to be seen as tools of American power? That is certainly not the way the average user in Bolivia sees it. They see it as a tool of their own personal power, and they don't want governments interfering with that. Further, he points out, this will likely drive users to foreign corporations, rather than American ones, as they strive to protect their privacy: Don't believe there are not alternatives to the U.S. Net collossi. Companies worldwide are already relentlessly working on alternatives. The second largest search service worldwide is China's Baidu, with more than 8% of searches globally at the end of last year according to ComScore. Russia's Yandex is at close to 3%, more than Microsoft's own search product. In social networking, China's Tencent has had a stunning recent success with its WeChat product, which by some counts has over 450 million users worldwide, including many tens of millions outside China. Most major Chinese Internet companies have global ambitions. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 09:20:55 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:20:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] ] German Change.org PRISM petition References: Message-ID: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Karina Brisby > Date: June 15, 2013, 8:16:24 AM EDT > To: webwewant at googlegroups.com > Subject: [webwewant] German Change.org PRISM petition > > Hi Everyone > > Just to let you know that Change.org, Germany have set up a PRISM/Edward Snowden petition. > http://www.change.org/prism > > The petition has been set up by a well know freedom of speech advocate in Germany and is directed at Chancellor Merkel. > > The petition points out the lack of sensitivity of having President Obama (after the NSA/PRISM revelations) speak at the Brandenburg Gate, the symbol of the end in 1989 of a East German surveillance state, and asks Chancellor Merkel to make a statement that the German government is against prosecution of PRISM whistleblower Edward Snowden > > It hasn't had a lot of sign-ups yet, this will probably increase on Monday. > > Regards > > Karina Brisby > Campaigns and Policy Officer > > Mobile: +44 7981 738 317 (UK) > Email: karina at webfoundation.org > Twitter: @karinab > Skype: team-brizzo > > World Wide Web Foundation | 1889 F Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, USA | www.webfoundation.org | Twitter: @webfoundation > > Please note I work Tuesday - Fridays > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sat Jun 15 09:31:28 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 06:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1371303088.71109.YahooMailNeo@web125102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Dear Sala, Thanks for sharing this information, Excellent Development.  This innovative idea implementation will lead to the real data storage clouds the stratosphere layer.  In other words it will become a stratosphere layer of the Internet around the globe, and implicitly, that will be used for surveillance to protect universe from the aliens. However, Google Users of the will have to ensure that their privacy, human rights and information security is not compromised by this innovative technology.  And Civil Society would like to protect this clean & transparent sphere of the sky from getting it stained, smudged suspicious and sneaky. Regards Imran >________________________________ > From: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; McTim >Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2013, 16:17 >Subject: Re: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky > > > >Thanks McTim: > > >It gets launched in Christchurch, New Zealand tomorrow: > > >(Source: Andrew Erbs) >Sunday 16th June 2013, 10am-2pm NZST @ Air Force Museum, 45 Harvard Ave, Wigram, Wigram Park 8140, New Zealand  > > >http://www.google.com/loon/ > > > > > >WHAT IS PROJECT LOON? > > >Many of us think of the Internet as a global community. But two-thirds of the world’s population does not yet have Internet access. Project Loon is a network of balloons traveling on the edge of space, designed to connect people in rural and remote areas, help fill coverage gaps, and bring people back online after disasters. > > >THE TECHNOLOGY > > >Project Loon balloons float in the stratosphere, twice as high as airplanes and the weather. They are carried around the Earth by winds and they can be steered by rising or descending to an altitude with winds moving in the desired direction. People connect to the balloon network using a special Internet antenna attached to their building. The signal bounces from balloon to balloon, then to the global Internet back on Earth. > > >THE PILOT TEST > > >Project Loon starts in June 2013 with an experimental pilot in New Zealand. A small group of Project Loon pioneers will test the technology in Christchurch and Canterbury. > > >HOW LOON MOVES > > >NAVIGATING WITH THE WIND > > >Project Loon balloons travel around 20 km above the Earth’s surface in the stratosphere. Winds in the stratosphere are generally steady and slow-moving at between 5 and 20 mph, and each layer of wind varies in direction and magnitude. Project Loon uses software algorithms to determine where its balloons need to go, then moves each one into a layer of wind blowing in the right direction. By moving with the wind, the balloons can be arranged to form one large communications network. > > >STRATOSPHERE > > >Situated between 10 km and 60 km altitude on the edge of space, the stratosphere is named after the different strata, or layers, of wind within it. But the extreme altitude also presents unique engineering challenges: air pressure is 1% of that at sea level, temperatures hover around -50°C, and a thinner atmosphere offers less protection from the UV radiation and temperature swings caused by the sun’s rays. By carefully designing the balloon envelope to withstand these conditions, Project Loon is able to take advantage of the steady stratospheric winds, and remain well above weather events, wildlife and airplanes. > > >HOW LOON IS DESIGNED > > >ENVELOPE > > >The balloon envelope is the name for the inflatable part of the balloon. Project Loon’s balloon envelopes are made from sheets of polyethylene plastic and stand fifteen meters wide by twelve meters tall when fully inflated. They are specially constructed for use in superpressure balloons, which are longer-lasting than weather balloons because they can withstand higher pressure from the air inside when the balloons reach float altitude. A parachute attached to the top of the envelope allows for a controlled descent and landing whenever a balloon is ready to be taken out of service. > > > >SOLAR PANELS > > >Each unit’s electronics are powered by an array of solar panels that sits between the envelope and the hardware. In full sun, these panels produce 100 Watts of power - enough to keep the unit running while also charging a battery for use at night. By moving with the wind and charging in the sun, Project Loon is able to power itself using only renewable energy sources. > > >EQUIPMENT > > >A small box containing the balloon’s electronic equipment hangs underneath the inflated envelope, like the basket that is carried by a hot air balloon. This box contains circuit boards that control the system, radio antennas to communicate with other balloons and with Internet antennas on the ground, and batteries to store solar power so the balloons can operate during the night. > > >HOW LOON CONNECTS > > >Each balloon can provide connectivity to a ground area about 40 km in diameter at speeds comparable to 3G. For balloon-to-balloon and balloon-to-ground communications, the balloons use antennas equipped with specialized radio frequency technology. Project Loon currently uses ISM bands (specifically 2.4 and 5.8 GHz bands) that are available for anyone to use. > > >WHERE LOON IS GOING > > >The Project Loon pilot test begins June 2013 on the 40th parallel south. Thirty balloons, launched from New Zealand’s South Island, will beam Internet to a small group of pilot testers. The experience of these pilot testers will be used to refine the technology and shape the next phase of Project Loon. > > > > > >On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:05 PM, McTim wrote: > >While we have been busy navel gazing about the relative evilness of >>gov vs corporatism, some folks have been busy working on Universal >>Access methods: >> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcw6j-QWGMo >> >>-- >>Cheers, >> >>McTim >>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >>route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>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 >> >> > > > >-- > >Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala >P.O. Box 17862 >Suva >Fiji > > >Twitter: @SalanietaT >Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro >Tel: +679 3544828 >Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 >Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com > >  > > >____________________________________________________________ >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From charlespmok at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 09:35:43 2013 From: charlespmok at gmail.com (Charles Mok (gmail)) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:35:43 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden In-Reply-To: <13d501ce6758$241d5c50$6c5814f0$@gmail.com> References: <13d501ce6758$241d5c50$6c5814f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks and we had the rally today. This is what I said (well, just about....) http://charlesmok.blogspot.hk/2013/06/ed-snowden-dont-go-to-china.html Some photos: https://plus.google.com/u/0/109812652951521353110/posts/NVUGRDSDvZ5 (I took them so I am not in them :) Lots of international media. On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:32 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > Note with congratulations the participation of Charles Mok who I believe, > is the representative of the Technical Community in the Hong Kong > Legislature (it`s complicated…) and a member of the Internet Rights and > Principles Coalition (IRP)…**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* davidicus [mailto:bigbluearth at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 6:20 AM > *To:* ciresearchers > *Cc:* michael gurstein > *Subject:* Fwd: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden**** > > ** ** > > Dear CI Colleagues--- > > An important point is being made in Hong Kong. It is great to see the > alliance that has rapidly formed around this issue. See the posting just > received below**** > > ~david**** > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Damon Wong* > Date: 2013/6/12 > Subject: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden > To: > > **** > > [image: Inline image 1]**** > > ** ** > > ► 6月15日聲援斯諾登遊行 > ► HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden > ► http://www.supportsnowden.org/ > > 揭發美國國家安全局侵犯全球互聯網和電話用戶私隱的愛德華．斯諾登目前正藏身香港，因 > 為他相信香港「很重視言論自由和表達政治異見的權利」。他犧牲了自己的安逸的生活和自由，去捍衞大家的網絡與言論自由，這場仗不應該由他一個人來背負。 > Edward Snowden, the whistleblower behind the NSA internet and phone > surveillance program has come to Hong Kong because, he says, we “have a > spirited commitment to free speech and the right of political dissent". > Snowden sacrificed his personal safety and freedom to defend our right to > free speech and Internet freedom. > > 請大家站出來，要求香港政府根據國際公約和慣例去處理和保護斯諾登；譴責美國侵犯我們的權利與私隱，要求美國政府不要壓害這位人權捍衞者。 > We call on Hong Kong to respect international legal standards and > procedures relating to the protection of Snowden; we condemn the U.S. > government for violating our rights and privacy; and we call on the U.S. > not to prosecute Snowden.” > > 我們亦要借這機會，告訴世界，香港市民會站出來，捍衞自由、人權和法治等普世價值。發出我們的聲音，向壓迫者說不！ > Do you want to stand for freedom and the rule of law? Or should we totally > disregard Hong Kong's legal system? This episode marks a crossroads in Hong > Kong's future. Stand up for the future of Hong Kong.. > > 遊行時間：2013年6月15日下午3點至5點半。 > Time: 3 - 5:30pm, Saturday June 15, 2013. > > 遊行路線：3點於遮打花園（中環站J2出口）起步遊行至美國領事館抗議，再遊行至添馬艦政府總部要求港府保護斯諾登。 > Rally route: Starting 3pm at Chater Garden, Central MTR exit J2. Rally to > the U.S Consulate and then Tamar SAR government building. > > 遊行準備：請呼朋引伴一齊來；由於當天可能下雨，請自備一些防水的海報和橫額。遊行的口號包括：「捍衞自由港 保護斯諾登」、「停止互聯網監控」、「NSA > 可恥」、「出賣斯諾登＝出賣自由」 > Rally preparation: Please bring your friends, prepare for rain and try to > bring water resistant posters. Slogan suggestions: "Defend Free Speech, > Protect Snowden", "No Extradition", "Respect Hong Kong Law", "Shame on > NSA", "Stop Internet Surveillance", "Betray Snowden = Betray Freedom". > > 已確認發言人包括：葉蔭聰，獨立媒體（香港）成員、毛孟靜，立法會議員、莫乃光，立法會議員、何俊仁，立法會議員、羅沃啟，香港人權監察總幹事. > Confirmed speakers include: Ip lam Chong, Hong Kong In-Media; Claudia Mo, > Member of the Legco; Charles Mok, Member of the Legco; Albert Ho, Member of > the Legco, and Law Yuk Kai, Director, Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. > > 遊行 tag #SnowdenHK > Rally tag: #SnowdenHK > > 協辦團體（歡迎加入）： > Rally co-organizers: > > ► inmediahk.net 香港獨立媒體網(http://www.inmediahk.net/) > ► Hong Wrong (http://hongwrong.com/) > ► Civil Human Rights Front 民間人權陣線(http://www.civilhrfront.org/) > ► Hong Kong Christian Institute 香港基督徒學會(http://www.hkci.org.hk/) > ► Hong Kong First 香港本土(https://www.facebook.com/hongkongfirst) > ► Midnight Blue 午夜藍 (http://www.mnbhk.org/) > ► Speak For Humanity (http://speakforhumanity.com/) > ► Land and Justice League 土地正義聯盟 (http://landjusticehk.org/) > ► 1908 Book Store 1908書社(https://www.facebook.com/1908book) > ► Youth Union 青年聯社 (http://youthunion.blogspot.hk/ > ) > ► Left 21 左翼廿一 (http://left21.hk/wp/ > ) > ► Socialist Action 社會主義行動 (http://www.socialism.hk/ > ) > ► NuTongXueShe 女同學社(http://leslovestudy.com/new/ntxs/ > ) > **** > > ** ** > > -- **** > > *inmediahk: *http://alturl.com/4yy39 > *house:* http://alturl.com/pcpxa > *facebook:* http://alturl.com/gqzmc**** > > ** ** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: XAyxq4J.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 113024 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From antiropy at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 10:01:08 2013 From: antiropy at gmail.com (Byoung-il Oh) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:01:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Version_en_Espa=F1ol_-_carta_al_c?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ongreso_americano?= In-Reply-To: <9314FCB4-F561-41F6-8A0F-0E5A1B9A5A73@ciroap.org> References: <9314FCB4-F561-41F6-8A0F-0E5A1B9A5A73@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Jeremy Malcolm, Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet translated the letter into Korean. http://act.jinbo.net/drupal/node/7566 Best Regards, Oh Byoungil 2013/6/15 Jeremy Malcolm > On 14/06/2013, at 9:13 PM, Carolina Rossini > wrote: > > Hola a todos, > > Estoy trabajando en la versión en español de esta carta > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ aca http://piratepad.net/L7obyujdOw > > Ayuda es bien venida! > > > Awesome Carolina and Dominique, these two translations are linked from the > original now (though styling still needs a bit of work). > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: > https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From anriette at apc.org Sat Jun 15 10:06:43 2013 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:06:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=C3=A9tnico?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BC74F3.9090104@apc.org> Greetings all... I have not been able to follow the entire thread, but I really do agree with Daniel. I also don't believe that north/south perspectives need divide civil society; in fact I believe deeply that we need to be in solidarity with one another and respect one another's struggles. But there are differences... and for me they are quite profound differences. Daniel Piementa describes it really well when he says: " There is a South sensitivity and this is not a question of dividing the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a different perspective driven by quite different contexts." Anriette On 15/06/2013 04:40, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > Dear Mc Tim, > >> I think you have misunderstood the comments made by suresh, who is >> also from the developing world. I think what he was saying is that >> there are some people on the list who purport to speak for the >> developing world, but on this list, there is no representation, we >> only speak for ourselves. > > Then you should leave Suresh speaks for himself. > I definitively have not read his statement as you (representation was > not at all the issue) and I may not be the only one beyond Mike. > > As for >> we could get a lot more done if people didn't try to divide us with >> first vs third world rhetoric. > > I am a peson from the North who now live in the South for some 25 > years, and I disagree > with your statement. When focusing ICT4D and probably also Internet > governance they are > many issues which are not treated the same way in the South as in the > North (if only a question > of very different priority scheme). There is a South sensitivity and > this is not a question of > dividing the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a > different perspective driven by > quite different contexts. > > Some people like Suresh leave in the South and are reluctant to > acknowledge that difference of perspective; > this is their perfect right; however I do not think they have the > right to impose their view to the rest of us > (who probably are the majority in that very case). > > Cordialmente, > Daniel > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Jun 15 10:17:48 2013 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:17:48 +0700 Subject: [governance] Re: FW: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden In-Reply-To: References: <13d501ce6758$241d5c50$6c5814f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51BC778C.2070301@gmx.net> On 6/15/2013 8:35 PM, Charles Mok (gmail) wrote: > Thanks and we had the rally today. > This is what I said (well, just about....) > http://charlesmok.blogspot.hk/2013/06/ed-snowden-dont-go-to-china.html > [snip] > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:32 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > Note with congratulations the participation of Charles Mok who I > believe, is the representative of the Technical Community in the > Hong Kong Legislature (it`s complicated…) and a member of the > Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRP)… > And he is the Founding Chairman of the Internet Society Hong Kong. > > Rally co-organizers: > > ► inmediahk.net 香港獨立媒體網 > (http://www.inmediahk.net/) > ► Hong Wrong (http://hongwrong.com/) > ► Civil Human Rights Front 民間人權陣線(http://www.civilhrfront.org/) > ► Hong Kong Christian Institute 香港基督徒學會 > (http://www.hkci.org.hk/) > ► Hong Kong First 香港本土(https://www.facebook.com/hongkongfirst) > ► Midnight Blue 午夜藍(http://www.mnbhk.org/) > ► Speak For Humanity (http://speakforhumanity.com/) > ► Land and Justice League 土地正義聯盟(http://landjusticehk.org/) > ► 1908 Book Store 1908書社(https://www.facebook.com/1908book) > ► Youth Union 青年聯社(http://youthunion.blogspot.hk/ > ) > ► Left 21 左翼廿一(http://left21.hk/wp/ > ) > ► Socialist Action 社會主義行動(http://www.socialism.hk/ > ) > ► NuTongXueShe 女同學社(http://leslovestudy.com/new/ntxs/ > ) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 10:49:40 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 10:49:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: <51BC74F3.9090104@apc.org> References: <51BC74F3.9090104@apc.org> Message-ID: I agree with Daniel and Anriette. I'm expressing this very poorly but sometimes I think a disagreement occurs because we don't comprehend the other person's thought and the lack of comprehension happens because we have no real awareness of the context, the status quo, that triggered the thought. It is really difficult for us to imagine ourselves into the other person's place to see from his/her perspective. To give a very simplistic example - I attended a WSIS workshop in Geneva (remotely) recently at which the importance of a reliable electricity supply of some sort to access and use of the Internet suddenly seemed to arrive in the consciousness of the people carrying on the discussion, most of whom were "North based". In the South we are inclined to take electricity problems for granted as a part of everyday life. (LUCELEC you've been doing amazingly well recently, so I didn't mean you :-) ) Deirdre On 15 June 2013 10:06, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Greetings all... > > I have not been able to follow the entire thread, but I really do agree > with Daniel. I also don't believe that north/south perspectives need > divide civil society; in fact I believe deeply that we need to be in > solidarity with one another and respect one another's struggles. > > But there are differences... and for me they are quite profound > differences. Daniel Piementa describes it really well when he says: > " There is a South sensitivity and this is not a question of dividing > the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a different > perspective driven by > quite different contexts." > > Anriette > > > On 15/06/2013 04:40, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > > Dear Mc Tim, > > > >> I think you have misunderstood the comments made by suresh, who is > >> also from the developing world. I think what he was saying is that > >> there are some people on the list who purport to speak for the > >> developing world, but on this list, there is no representation, we > >> only speak for ourselves. > > > > Then you should leave Suresh speaks for himself. > > I definitively have not read his statement as you (representation was > > not at all the issue) and I may not be the only one beyond Mike. > > > > As for > >> we could get a lot more done if people didn't try to divide us with > >> first vs third world rhetoric. > > > > I am a peson from the North who now live in the South for some 25 > > years, and I disagree > > with your statement. When focusing ICT4D and probably also Internet > > governance they are > > many issues which are not treated the same way in the South as in the > > North (if only a question > > of very different priority scheme). There is a South sensitivity and > > this is not a question of > > dividing the community but rather acknowledging the existence of a > > different perspective driven by > > quite different contexts. > > > > Some people like Suresh leave in the South and are reluctant to > > acknowledge that difference of perspective; > > this is their perfect right; however I do not think they have the > > right to impose their view to the rest of us > > (who probably are the majority in that very case). > > > > Cordialmente, > > Daniel > > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From katitza at eff.org Sat Jun 15 11:13:52 2013 From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:13:52 -0700 Subject: [governance] What's New On The Spies Without Borders Series? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51BC84B0.7020307@eff.org> Below, you will find a series of articles looking into how the information disclosed in the NSA leaks affect the international community and how they highlight one part of an international system of surveillance that dissolves what national privacy protections any of us have, whereever we live. These articles are being published in both EFF and OpenMedia site. Spies Without Borders II: Foreign Surveillance Post-9/11. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC), Katitza Rodriguez (EFF), Mark Rumold (EFF) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/foreign-surveillance-history-privacy-erosions Spies Without Borders III: Modern Foreign Surveillance - A Legal Perspective. By Tamir Israel (CIPPIC), Katitza Rodriguez (EFF), Mark Rumold (EFF), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/modern-foreign-surveillance-legal-perspective The full series is here: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/spy-without-borders Best -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From pimienta at funredes.org Sat Jun 15 11:31:31 2013 From: pimienta at funredes.org (Daniel Pimienta) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:31:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=C3=A9tnico?= In-Reply-To: <51BC74F3.9090104@apc.org> References: <51BC74F3.9090104@apc.org> Message-ID: I do not mean to extend anymore this thread, but I would like to kindly suggest a reading to Suresh, Mc Tim and whoever is doubtful about how the differences of context between indutrialized and developing countries could impact policies in our field. I will welcome any offlist discussion triggered by this reading. This is an old paper presented at INET93 which draws methodological recommendations for building networks in the South from a systematic analysis of the context differences with the North and how they impact the process. The paper is old but the structural reality which is described in developing countries have unfortunately not evolved much in the last 30 years and are at the core of our present debate. 'Research Networks in Developing Countries: not exactly the same story!" Proc. of INET93, San Francisco http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Comp_Articles/Research_Nets.html -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Sat Jun 15 11:49:35 2013 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:49:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <51BAE16D.8010909@gmail.com> References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> <51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz> <51BAE16D.8010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <9y3W+cPP0IvRFAzN@internetpolicyagency.com> In message <51BAE16D.8010909 at gmail.com>, at 12:25:01 on Fri, 14 Jun 2013, Riaz K Tayob writes >The issue is that democratic discussion on this matter has been blocked >in some obvious and devious means. This invites bad faith, whether >others think this is justified or not. This is an impediment that I >hope the likes of you and Curran, Perry, Roland, etc can accomodate >instead of what we have had, and which I characterise as 'wild west >cowboy' management of this issue That's a little unfair in that I (both of me) are only contributing here to enhance discussion, and also bring to the table some historical recognition of the enormous amount of discussion that many of the issues have had over the years. I have a feeling that John (Curran) has much the same motive [this is not just idle speculation, we worked quite closely together for many years]. -- Roland Perry -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 11:55:13 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:55:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_Racismo_=C3=28c=29tnico?= Message-ID: Hi Daniel, On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Daniel Pimienta wrote: > I do not mean to extend anymore this thread, but I would like to kindly > suggest a reading to Suresh, Mc Tim and whoever is doubtful about how the > differences of context between indutrialized and developing countries could > impact policies in our field. Thanks for the link. As someone who has spent many years building networks in rural Africa, I understand fully the differences (and similarities). I find that having our our NICs and NOGs has been quite useful as well. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From soekpe at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 12:38:15 2013 From: soekpe at gmail.com (Sonigitu Ekpe) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:38:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Does it matter which legal system ICANN operates under? In-Reply-To: <9y3W+cPP0IvRFAzN@internetpolicyagency.com> References: <51B858AC.4050000@internetnz.net.nz> <51BACB2B.6050508@gmail.com> <51BAD042.3000700@internetnz.net.nz> <51BAE16D.8010909@gmail.com> <9y3W+cPP0IvRFAzN@internetpolicyagency.com> Message-ID: This might be interesting http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16909-big-money-and-the-nsa-scandal-how-dangerous-is-the-security-digital-complex The game is so thick. Sonigitu Ekpe Aji :-@ SEA "Life becomes more meaningful; when we think of others, positively." +234 8027510179 On Jun 15, 2013 4:51 PM, "Roland Perry" wrote: > In message <51BAE16D.8010909 at gmail.com>, at 12:25:01 on Fri, 14 Jun 2013, > Riaz K Tayob writes > >> The issue is that democratic discussion on this matter has been blocked >> in some obvious and devious means. This invites bad faith, whether others >> think this is justified or not. This is an impediment that I hope the likes >> of you and Curran, Perry, Roland, etc can accomodate instead of what we >> have had, and which I characterise as 'wild west cowboy' management of this >> issue >> > > That's a little unfair in that I (both of me) are only contributing here > to enhance discussion, and also bring to the table some historical > recognition of the enormous amount of discussion that many of the issues > have had over the years. I have a feeling that John (Curran) has much the > same motive [this is not just idle speculation, we worked quite closely > together for many years]. > -- > Roland Perry > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 15:36:41 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:36:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2016789130-1371324490-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-387583888-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> A A A E A R Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: Baudouin SCHOMBE Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 12:23:34 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Baudouin SCHOMBE Subject: Re: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress You're right Parminder but when we make the rules of conduct in connection with the observance of human rights, we must all be considered. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email : b.schombe at gmail.com skype : b.schombe blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web : www.ticafrica.net 2013/6/15 parminder > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the > law. > > > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one can be > above the law.... and there is no global law to constrain the US from doing > what it would with the centres and nodes of the Internet which it > occupies.... We can though keep talking about the much fancied but > meaningless bottom up processes here.... parminder > > parminder > > It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe > must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical > situation and who we are.I support this statement. After all, no one can > pretend to be above the law. It is a principle as old as democracy in > advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and > reflexes whatever our geographical localisation and who we are. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > 2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow > >> > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >> >> [with IGC coordinator hat on] >> >> FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >> >> We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >> civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. >> >> Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >> below. >> >> If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >> there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >> >> If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it >> is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. >> >> ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** >> >> If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >> proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. >> >> NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there >> are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- >> >> Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >> telecommunications surveillance >> >> Members of US Congress: >> >> We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the >> world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >> and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by >> the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >> authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >> activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the >> Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >> US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >> participating in these practices.[2] >> >> The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >> digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >> age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts >> in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step >> in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >> transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of >> a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >> by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >> dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >> thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center >> of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >> serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The >> inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >> surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >> even more alarming.[4] >> >> The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >> online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears >> to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >> government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the >> global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >> articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >> Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >> signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >> in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >> policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >> happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >> will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >> protection of the human rights of people around the world. >> >> It is also notable that the United States government supported the >> United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >> that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >> online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days >> ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >> drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >> when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >> done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >> international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >> be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >> practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation >> of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >> between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >> moral credibility of the country within the global community that >> fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >> impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >> worldwide services. >> >> On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >> raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did >> so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >> Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank >> La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of >> communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >> rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >> that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >> express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >> surveillance program with domestic law.[9] >> >> We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ >> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >> obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >> which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing >> of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >> citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >> violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >> universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >> all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that >> current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >> due consideration. >> >> We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >> Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >> the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >> surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >> FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to >> publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance >> Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >> call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >> whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately >> informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >> rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join >> Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with >> subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current >> practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections >> for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >> results of this panel should be broadly published. >> >> [1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >> >> https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >> and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. >> >> [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, >> YouTube, and Apple: >> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html >> >> [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ >> >> [4] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 >> >> [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ >> >> [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa >> >> [8] (A/HRC/23/40) >> >> [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national >> security request data >> >> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >> >> [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ >> >> [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >> Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic >> of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >> this regard: >> >> http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf >> . >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 15:58:43 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 19:58:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Re=3ARacismo_=E9tnico?= In-Reply-To: <13f47534b92.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51BC3506.1080902@gmail.com> <13f47534b92.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1366764188-1371325814-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-931208540-@b15.c10.bise7.blackberry> Q Qq A A Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:43:35 To: Riaz K Tayob; Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] Re:Racismo étnico Thanks riaz and believe me, where I can find common ground i certainly will --srs (htc one x) On 15 June 2013 3:03:58 PM Riaz K Tayob wrote: > Actually I have been less than constructive and with guidance from good > friends have pointed this out. There is a contest of ideas and values, > which is all that I am trying to create space for here, which is difficult, > but no excuse for me bad behaviour. > > The contest of ideas need not be expressed so personally, crudely nor in a > way that forecloses discussion - none of us are above reproach. So I do not > read Suresh's point as racist at all. It is part of the contest. A contest > that can be conducted more civilly on my part, which includes abstaining > from being provoked. > > While I will try to be clear and precise, I will try to be more > constructive so that we can get to the real politics of the matters at > hand... with intellectual diversity, and multiple conceptions of the values > that underpin our understanding of the 'good life' that inspires are > respective value systems. > > So while I cannot apologise nor retract my Third World analytic, I can > certainly try not to be an ass about it... and as we are in good company I > can count on openness and candour from friends to point this out... > > riaz > On 2013/06/15 06:02 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > Noting Jose's message here in English for those who're unable to read/use > a translator > > /"Is this practicing ethnic racism? Such attacks should not be allowed on > this list (or any other). > > > > It only serves to belittle and intimidate the person, and it detracts > from their free membership participation in discussions and debates on this > list. > > > > I'm originally from a developing country, also known as the Third World, > and I am proud of my ethnicity and my home. > > > > It strikes me that as members of this list highly prepared, cognitively > and culturally still remains in some aspects of racial segregation"/ > > FYI Jose fair few of us are from what you'd call a "third world" or > "developing" country. So when a smiley like ":)" is used next to the term > it's because it's usually intended as a joke, not as a serious insult/racism. > > Best, > > Chaitanya > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 5:28 AM, José Félix Arias Ynche > > wrote: > > > > > > ¿Se esta practicando el racismo étnico? Este tipo de ataques no se > > debe permitir en esta lista (o en cualquier otro). > > Sólo sirve para menospreciar e intimidar a la persona, y desmedra > > su libre participación como miembro, en las discusiones y el > > debates en esta lista. > > > > Yo soy originario de un país en desarrollo, también conocido como > > del tercer mundo, y me siento orgulloso de mi etnia y de mi origen. > > > > Me llama la atención que siendo los integrantes de esta lista > > personas altamente preparadas, cognitivamente y culturalmente, aun > > quede en algunos rasgos de segregación racial > > > > > > > > > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > > > > 2013/6/14 McTim > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:05 PM, michael gurstein > > > wrote: > > > Whatever the source, this kind of personalized > > attack/characterization > > > should not be allowed on this (or any) list. It only serves > > to belittle and > > > intimidate and stifles free discussion and debate which > > should be the > > > objective of our activities here. > > > > > > We should be dealing with ideas and arguments and not who or > > how to describe > > > individuals neither by their beliefs nor more than by their > > physical or > > > other characteristics. > > > > > > Would the coordinators please intervene to remove this type > > of behaviour > > > from the list. > > > > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > > > > You and others should recognise however that Suresh is the > > least of > > the offenders. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > > > McTim > > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it > > is. A > > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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: > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 16:00:06 2013 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 16:00:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some more information (text) about the balloon project from the BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22905199 Deirdre On 15 June 2013 07:05, McTim wrote: > While we have been busy navel gazing about the relative evilness of > gov vs corporatism, some folks have been busy working on Universal > Access methods: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcw6j-QWGMo > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Sat Jun 15 17:02:03 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 21:02:03 +0000 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: Now we still have to be able to believe that this decision will only apply to anyone actually arrested for any crime that actually occurred. mc On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 1:42 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > Specific movie - Gattaca. > > -C > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Chaitanya Dhareshwar < > chaitanyabd at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I thought it would get used the other way around, they would identify >> 'criminals' at birth and prosecute them well in advance (like in the movies) >> >> -C >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From avri at acm.org Sat Jun 15 17:19:59 2013 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 17:19:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: On 15 Jun 2013, at 17:02, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Now we still have to be able to believe that this decision will only apply to anyone actually arrested for any crime that actually occurred. how could you possibly beleive that. we are talking about the police. avri -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Sat Jun 15 17:26:15 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 23:26:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] (offtopic) DNA and the USA In-Reply-To: References: <2E10C3FE-6BDD-4402-8E43-A32EE0EE3CCC@ella.com> Message-ID: <51BCDBF7.1070700@panamo.eu> Even, unacceptable. @+, Dom Le 15/06/13 23:02, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > Now we still have to be able to believe that this decision will only > apply to anyone actually arrested for any crime that actually occurred. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 02:59:03 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 18:59:03 +1200 Subject: [governance] a global mesh network in the sky In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Feedback from Karatiana (head of an At Large Structure (ALS) in New Zealand) who attended the event is as follows: "I attended the event this morning as an individual with an interest in Internet access. ** ** The event was more of a promotion event for families and the community with lots of free posters, stickers and photo opportunities (my blog will have photos later today). There were several marketing staff walking around interacting with people and two of the engineers from Google X next to a semi inflated balloon in the plane hangar were answering questions to a crowd who surrounded them. It was difficult to hear and a long wait to get close to them. But the questions were generally about the hardware specs, solar panels and the balloon material.**** ** ** In terms of where to next, I was told that other areas of New Zealand would be used for testing in the near future. There was no definitive answer about the Pacific Islands that I was able to ascertain today.**** ** ** With the exception of the two engineers answering adhoc questions, the rest of the available information is available on their Google+ page https://plus.google.com/+ProjectLoon/posts and a section from last night’s NZ news is here http://www.3news.co.nz/Googles-internet-beaming-balloons/tabid/412/articleID/301592/Default.aspx **** ** ** Regards,**** Karaitiana Taiuru On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 8:00 AM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Some more information (text) about the balloon project from the BBC. > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-22905199 > Deirdre > > > On 15 June 2013 07:05, McTim wrote: > >> While we have been busy navel gazing about the relative evilness of >> gov vs corporatism, some folks have been busy working on Universal >> Access methods: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcw6j-QWGMo >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> >> McTim >> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A >> route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dl at panamo.eu Sun Jun 16 11:51:32 2013 From: dl at panamo.eu (Dominique Lacroix) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 17:51:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Another letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BC0CE9.9060304@panamo.eu> References: <51BC0CE9.9060304@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <51BDDF04.4060204@panamo.eu> Le 15/06/13 08:42, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : > Mozilla with several US organizations and individuals : > > https://optin.stopwatching.us/ Who will explain APC (among other organizations) and Birgitta Jónsdóttir (among other famous individuals) that is not so smart to promote civil rights for American citizens only? @+, Dom -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 15:09:45 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:09:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?GB2312?B?TGV5IGRlIGNvbXVuaWNhY2morm4gZGVsIEVjdWFz?= =?GB2312?B?ZG9y?= In-Reply-To: <51BDDF04.4060204@panamo.eu> References: <51BC0CE9.9060304@panamo.eu> <51BDDF04.4060204@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <97DE34BA-133C-4228-B1FC-3EBF51D68966@gmail.com> Para su análisis y comentarios http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/Actualidad/2013/14-06-13-texto-final-proyecto-ley-comunicacion.pdf Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 El 16/06/2013, a las 10:51, Dominique Lacroix
escribió: > Le 15/06/13 08:42, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : >> Mozilla with several US organizations and individuals : >> >> https://optin.stopwatching.us/ > Who will explain APC (among other organizations) and Birgitta Jónsdóttir (among other famous individuals) that is not so smart to promote civil rights for American citizens only? > > @+, Dom > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cveraq at gmail.com Sun Jun 16 15:12:25 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:12:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?GB2312?B?TGV5IGRlIENvbXVuaWNhY2morm4gZGUgRWN1YWRv?= =?GB2312?B?cg==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40A9AB8B-5F92-43C1-801F-B1767BBBE424@gmail.com> Para su análisis y comentarios la nueva ley de comunicación del Ecuador @el_telegrafo publica en impreso y en línea la Ley de Comunicación. Para enterarnos de nuestros derechos! http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/Actualidad/2013/14-06-13-texto-final-proyecto-ley-comunicacion.pdf Carlos Vera -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jeremy at ciroap.org Sun Jun 16 20:42:49 2013 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:42:49 +0800 Subject: [governance] Another letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BDDF04.4060204@panamo.eu> References: <51BC0CE9.9060304@panamo.eu> <51BDDF04.4060204@panamo.eu> Message-ID: <0A2EBDDA-DAAD-4064-9450-4B0BD7AAA9CD@ciroap.org> On 16/06/2013, at 11:51 PM, Dominique Lacroix
wrote: > Le 15/06/13 08:42, Dominique Lacroix a écrit : >> Mozilla with several US organizations and individuals : >> >> https://optin.stopwatching.us/ > Who will explain APC (among other organizations) and Birgitta Jónsdóttir (among other famous individuals) that is not so smart to promote civil rights for American citizens only? The original version of the letter was much worse; saying "Although the program reportedly only targets foreign communications, there is no guarantee that the communications of innocent American citizens is not also being swept up in this expansive surveillance program." Only foreign communications, and American citizens are fine for now? Well, what are we all worrying about, then? -- Dr Jeremy Malcolm Senior Policy Officer Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013 @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 05:17:12 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:17:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) here > so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I meant: Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words and hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings and invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and (b) references to other participants' viewpoints that were understood by others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I propose that it would be helpful to increase our mutual understanding of what our various viewpoints (I use this term broadly in this email, it is intended to include what I have previously referred to as “perspectives” and “interests”) are, e.g. by means of an online wiki that documents many of them. As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC. I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a technical background, by living in a small European country which is not part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable experiences of being put under severe pressure by more powerful countries, and by having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor people in Kenya. The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that lists the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the IGC wiki homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with one of them. The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants without risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I have endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of viewpoint that I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when that label is then used in reference to the kind of views that I have been advocating.) - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such background understanding can be provided e.g. by links to theoretical treatises on particular viewpoints, by explaining the particular perspectives and experiences that have significantly contributed to shaping a particular viewpoint, etc. - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a “map of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”. Greetings, Norbert > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > McTim wrote: > > > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > > > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > > Some remarks have been devoid of any substantive content, while > > others point (even if somewhat imprecisely) to real differences in > > perspective and interests. > > > > A mapping exercise in regard to these different perspectives and > > interests might be helpful - provided that we are able to agree on > > the basic premise that everyone has the right to make their own > > decision on what perspective they choose to adopt. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 05:31:20 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:01:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: So for example (for clarity, mainly for me) I may say I'm a third worlder (from India) as well as a third worldist (trying to focus on improving the developing nations overall) and this would be noted on the wiki? So that someone who understands that viewpoint would be able to sympathize/'get' my point better, and someone who does not get that viewpoint would be perhaps able to reconcile differences and ask questions accordingly? -C On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) here > > so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) > > Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I > meant: > > Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words and > hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings and > invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and (b) > references to other participants' viewpoints that were understood by > others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I propose that it > would be helpful to increase our mutual understanding of what our > various viewpoints (I use this term broadly in this email, it is > intended to include what I have previously referred to as “perspectives” > and “interests”) are, e.g. by means of an online wiki that documents > many of them. > > As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a > wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org > account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC. > > I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social > liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly > explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I > might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a > technical background, by living in a small European country which is not > part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable experiences of > being put under severe pressure by more powerful countries, and by > having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor people in Kenya. > > The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that lists > the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the IGC wiki > homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with one of them. > > The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include > - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants without > risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I have > endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of viewpoint that > I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when that label is then > used in reference to the kind of views that I have been advocating.) > - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding > on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such background > understanding can be provided e.g. by links to theoretical treatises > on particular viewpoints, by explaining the particular perspectives > and experiences that have significantly contributed to shaping a > particular viewpoint, etc. > - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC > > Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to > self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing > with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a “map > of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > McTim wrote: > > > > > > > I would be glad if this happened, we could get a lot more done if > > > > people didn't try to divide us with first vs third world rhetoric. > > > > > > Some remarks have been devoid of any substantive content, while > > > others point (even if somewhat imprecisely) to real differences in > > > perspective and interests. > > > > > > A mapping exercise in regard to these different perspectives and > > > interests might be helpful - provided that we are able to agree on > > > the basic premise that everyone has the right to make their own > > > decision on what perspective they choose to adopt. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 06:46:34 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:46:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130617124634.22c21bbe@quill.bollow.ch> [with IGC coordinator hat on] As there have been no objections, the endorsement has been approved by consensus. Thank you to everyone who contributed to this process! Greetings, Norbert > > > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ > > [with IGC coordinator hat on] > > FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL > > We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International > civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. > > Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference > below. > > If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, > there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. > > If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, > it is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. > > ** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** > > If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the > proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. > > NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If > there are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- text proposed for endorsement > follows-------------------------------- > > Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and > telecommunications surveillance > > Members of US Congress: > > We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the > world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet > and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by > the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US > authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance > activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, > the Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many > US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be > participating in these practices.[2] > > The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global > digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital > age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts > in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any > step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and > transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by > any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation > of a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without > surveillance by a foreign state not only violates the rights to > privacy and human dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights > to freedom of thought, opinion and expression, and association that > are at the center of any democratic practice. Such actions are > unacceptable and raise serious concerns about extra-territorial > breaches of human rights. The inability of citizens to know if they > are subject to foreign surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, > or to seek remedies is even more alarming.[4] > > The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights > online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears > to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same > government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on > the global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human > rights articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International > Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United > States is signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US > must engage in a long overdue discussion about how to update and > modernize its policy to align with its own founding documents and > principles, what happens next in legislative and Executive Branch > oversight in the US will have huge and irreversible consequences for > the promotion and protection of the human rights of people around the > world. > > It is also notable that the United States government supported the > United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms > that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected > online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days > ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that > drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that > when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be > done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under > international human rights law and full respect for human rights must > be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest > practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation > of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence > between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the > moral credibility of the country within the global community that > fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally > impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide > worldwide services. > > On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to > raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We > did so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special > Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. > Frank La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state > surveillance of communications with serious implications for the > exercise of the human rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and > expression. We note that US-based stakeholders have also written a > letter to Congress to express their concerns about the compliance of > the current national surveillance program with domestic law.[9] > > We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ > statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access > obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their > communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on > the issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, > which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The > focusing of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of > US citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to > violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are > universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for > all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that > current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into > due consideration. > > We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States > Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent > the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based > surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the > FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies > to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence > Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received or may > receive.[10] We further call on the US Congress to establish > protections for government whistleblowers in order to better ensure > that the public is adequately informed about abuses of power that > violate the fundamental human rights of the citizens of all > countries, US and other.[11] We also join Humans Rights Watch in > urging the creation of an independent panel with subpoena power and > all necessary security clearances to examine current practices and to > make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections for the rights > to privacy, free expression, and association. The results of this > panel should be broadly published. > > [1] > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, > https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ > and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. > > [2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, > YouTube, and Apple: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html > > [3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ > > [4] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 > > [6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ > > [7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa > > [8] (A/HRC/23/40) > > [9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more > national security request data > http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html > > [10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ > > [11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and > Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the > topic of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant > guidance in this regard: > http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr Mon Jun 17 07:28:45 2013 From: arsenebaguma at yahoo.fr (Arsene TUNGALI) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:28:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1371468525.49841.YahooMailNeo@web28902.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> I support this letter on behalf of Rudi International   ------------------------------------------------------ Arsene Tungali, *Executive Director, Rudi International email: rudi.intl at yahoo.fr Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rudiinternational  web: www.rudiinternational.wordpress.com *Agronomy Sciences, Goma University Blog: http://tungali.blogspot.com/ Tel.: +243993810967, 853181857 Facebook-Twitter: Arsene Tungali Skype: arsenetungali Demmocratic Republic of Congo ________________________________ De : Baudouin SCHOMBE À : "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" ; parminder Envoyé le : Samedi 15 juin 2013 12h23 Objet : Re: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress You're right Parminder but when we make the rules of conduct in connection with the observance of human rights, we must all be considered. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com skype                 : b.schombe blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net   2013/6/15 parminder > >On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > >I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one can be above the law.... and there is no global law to constrain the US from doing what it would with the centres and nodes of the Internet which it occupies.... We can though keep talking about the much fancied but meaningless bottom up processes here.... parminder > >parminder > >It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical situation and who we are.I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above the law. It is a principle as old as democracy in advanced democracies, prinicipe must constantly remain in our minds and reflexes whatever our geographical  localisation and who we are. >> >> >> >>SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN >> >>Téléphone mobile:+243998983491 >>email                  : b.schombe at gmail.com >>skype                 : b.schombe >>blog                    : http://akimambo.unblog.fr >>Site Web             : www.ticafrica.net >>  >> >> >> >> >>2013/6/15 Norbert Bollow >> >>> > http://bestbits.net/prism-congress/ >>> >>>[with IGC coordinator hat on] >>> >>>FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL >>> >>>We have had quite a few expressions of support for the “International >>>civil society letter to Congress” already, and no objections so far. >>> >>>Please review the proposed statement text as included for reference >>>below. >>> >>>If you agree with the proposed statement or are indifferent about it, >>>there is no need to take action about it at the current stage. >>> >>>If however you disagree with IGC expressing support for this letter, it >>>is now the final opportunity to object if you wish to do so. >>> >>>** Any objections should be posted by Monday June 17, 9am UTC. ** >>> >>>If no objections are received by that time, IGC endorsement of the >>>proposed letter will be deemed to have been decided by consensus. >>> >>>NOTE on potential further steps in the decision-making process: If there >>>are any objections, we will then discuss how to proceed. >>> >>>Greetings, >>>Norbert >>> >>>-- text proposed for endorsement follows-------------------------------- >>> >>>Civil society letter to United States Congress on Internet and >>>telecommunications surveillance >>> >>>Members of US Congress: >>> >>>We write as a coalition of civil society organizations from around the >>>world to express our serious alarm regarding revelations of Internet >>>and telephone communications surveillance of US and non-US citizens by >>>the US government. We also wish to express our grave concern that US >>>authorities may have made the data resulting from those surveillance >>>activities available to other States, including the United Kingdom, the >>>Netherlands, Canada, Belgium, Australia and New Zealand.[1] Many >>>US-based Internet companies with global reach also seem to be >>>participating in these practices.[2] >>> >>>The introduction of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global >>>digital communications severely threatens human rights in the digital >>>age. These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental shifts >>>in the structure of information systems in modern societies.[3] Any step >>>in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep and >>>transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by >>>any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable. The situation of >>>a citizen unable to communicate private thoughts without surveillance >>>by a foreign state not only violates the rights to privacy and human >>>dignity, but also threatens the fundamental rights to freedom of >>>thought, opinion and expression, and association that are at the center >>>of any democratic practice. Such actions are unacceptable and raise >>>serious concerns about extra-territorial breaches of human rights. The >>>inability of citizens to know if they are subject to foreign >>>surveillance, to challenge such surveillance, or to seek remedies is >>>even more alarming.[4] >>> >>>The contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights >>>online by the US government and the recent allegations of what appears >>>to be mass surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same >>>government is very disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the >>>global stage. A blatant and systematic disregard for the human rights >>>articulated in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on >>>Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States is >>>signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration >>>of Human Rights is suggested. Bearing in mind that the US must engage >>>in a long overdue discussion about how to update and modernize its >>>policy to align with its own founding documents and principles, what >>>happens next in legislative and Executive Branch oversight in the US >>>will have huge and irreversible consequences for the promotion and >>>protection of the human rights of people around the world. >>> >>>It is also notable that the United States government supported the >>>United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 20/8, which “[a]ffirms >>>that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected >>>online, in particular freedom of expression …”[5] and, just a few days >>>ago, on June 10, the US was part of a core group of countries that >>>drafted a cross regional statement, which correctly emphasized “that >>>when addressing any security concerns on the Internet, this must be >>>done in a manner consistent with states’ obligations under >>>international human rights law and full respect for human rights must >>>be maintained.”[6] That was apparently not the case with the latest >>>practices of the US Government. Besides representing a major violation >>>of fundamental human rights of people worldwide, the incoherence >>>between practices and public statements by the US also undermines the >>>moral credibility of the country within the global community that >>>fights for human rights, as they apply to the Internet and fatally >>>impacts consumers’ trust in all American companies that provide >>>worldwide services. >>> >>>On 10 June, 2013 many signatories to this letter joined together to >>>raise our concerns to the United Nations Human Rights Council.[7] We did >>>so against the background of the recent report of the UN Special >>>Rapporteur on the right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, Mr. Frank >>>La Rue.[8] This report detailed worrying trends in state surveillance of >>>communications with serious implications for the exercise of the human >>>rights to privacy and to freedom of opinion and expression. We note >>>that US-based stakeholders have also written a letter to Congress to >>>express their concerns about the compliance of the current national >>>surveillance program with domestic law.[9] >>> >>>We are also extremely disappointed that, in all the post ‘disclosures’ >>>statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access >>>obtained to content related to US citizens, and just their >>>communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the >>>issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens, >>>which constitute an almost certain human rights violation. The focusing >>>of the US authorities on the difference between treatment of US >>>citizens and non-citizens on an issue which essentially relates to >>>violation of human rights is very problematic. Human rights are >>>universal, and every government must refrain from violating them for >>>all people, and not merely for its citizens. We strongly advocate that >>>current and future legal provisions and practices take this fact into >>>due consideration. >>> >>>We therefore urge the Obama administration and the United States >>>Congress to take immediate action to dismantle existing, and prevent >>>the creation of future, global Internet and telecommunications based >>>surveillance systems. We additionally urge the US Administration, the >>>FBI and the Attorney General to allow involved or affected companies to >>>publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence Surveillance >>>Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive.[10] We further >>>call on the US Congress to establish protections for government >>>whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is adequately >>>informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental human >>>rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other.[11] We also join >>>Humans Rights Watch in urging the creation of an independent panel with >>>subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine current >>>practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate protections >>>for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The >>>results of this panel should be broadly published. >>> >>>[1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d0873f38-d1c5-11e2-9336-00144feab7de.html, >>>https://www.bof.nl/2013/06/11/bits-of-freedom-dutch-spooks-must-stop-use-of-prism/ >>>and http://www.standaard.be/cnt/DMF20130610_063. >>> >>>[2] Including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, >>>YouTube, and Apple: >>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html >>> >>>[3] http://www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/ >>> >>>[4] (A/HRC/23/40) >>> >>>[5] http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/HRC/RES/20/8 >>> >>>[6] http://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/06/10/internet-freedom-5/ >>> >>>[7] http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa >>> >>>[8] (A/HRC/23/40) >>> >>>[9] Asking the U.S. government to allow Google to publish more national >>>security request data >>>http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2013/06/asking-us-government-to-allow-google-to.html >>> >>>[10] https://www.stopwatching.us/ >>> >>>[11] The just-released Global Principles on National Security and >>>Freedom of Information (the Tshwane Principles) which address the topic >>>of Whistleblowing and National Security provide relevant guidance in >>>this regard: >>>http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/Global%20Principles%20on%20National%20Security%20and%20the%20Right%20to%20Information%20%28Tshwane%20Principles%29%20-%20June%202013.pdf. >>> >>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>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: >     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:     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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 08:16:35 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:16:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > So for example (for clarity, mainly for me) I may say I'm a third > worlder (from India) as well as a third worldist (trying to focus on > improving the developing nations overall) and this would be noted on > the wiki? So that someone who understands that viewpoint would be > able to sympathize/'get' my point better, and someone who does not > get that viewpoint would be perhaps able to reconcile differences and > ask questions accordingly? Yes, exactly... and since it'd be you who enters the term “third worldist” into the wiki as a descriptive term for yourself, together with the explanation “trying to focus on improving the developing nations overall”, it would be clear to all that it is acceptable, and not in any way unfriendly, to refer to that perspective and objective as “third worldist”. Greetings, Norbert > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > > > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) > > > here so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) > > > > Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I > > meant: > > > > Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words > > and hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings > > and invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and > > (b) references to other participants' viewpoints that were > > understood by others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I > > propose that it would be helpful to increase our mutual > > understanding of what our various viewpoints (I use this term > > broadly in this email, it is intended to include what I have > > previously referred to as “perspectives” and “interests”) are, e.g. > > by means of an online wiki that documents many of them. > > > > As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a > > wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org > > account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC. > > > > I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social > > liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly > > explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I > > might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a > > technical background, by living in a small European country which > > is not part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable > > experiences of being put under severe pressure by more powerful > > countries, and by having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor > > people in Kenya. > > > > The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that > > lists the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the > > IGC wiki homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with > > one of them. > > > > The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include > > - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants > > without risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I > > have endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of > > viewpoint that I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when > > that label is then used in reference to the kind of views that I > > have been advocating.) > > - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding > > on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such > > background understanding can be provided e.g. by links to > > theoretical treatises on particular viewpoints, by explaining the > > particular perspectives and experiences that have significantly > > contributed to shaping a particular viewpoint, etc. > > - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC > > > > Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to > > self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing > > with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a > > “map of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 08:24:02 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:24:02 +1200 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: For the record, I am from Fiji which is defined as a small island developing state. I refuse to be labelled as a Third Worldist because in doing this I accept that there is a First World, Second World etc. I refuse to have my identity defined through this means. This does not mean that I do not recognise that there are diverse contexts and markets as there is diversity of region, markets and I also recognise that context shapes meaning. Sala (not in my coordinator capacity) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 08:25:10 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:55:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Cool, I'm glad I chose that particular set of terms. So when does this become available to us then? -C On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > So for example (for clarity, mainly for me) I may say I'm a third > > worlder (from India) as well as a third worldist (trying to focus on > > improving the developing nations overall) and this would be noted on > > the wiki? So that someone who understands that viewpoint would be > > able to sympathize/'get' my point better, and someone who does not > > get that viewpoint would be perhaps able to reconcile differences and > > ask questions accordingly? > > Yes, exactly... and since it'd be you who enters the term “third > worldist” into the wiki as a descriptive term for yourself, together > with the explanation “trying to focus on improving the developing > nations overall”, it would be clear to all that it is acceptable, and > not in any way unfriendly, to refer to that perspective and objective as > “third worldist”. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > > > > > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) > > > > here so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) > > > > > > Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I > > > meant: > > > > > > Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words > > > and hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings > > > and invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and > > > (b) references to other participants' viewpoints that were > > > understood by others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I > > > propose that it would be helpful to increase our mutual > > > understanding of what our various viewpoints (I use this term > > > broadly in this email, it is intended to include what I have > > > previously referred to as “perspectives” and “interests”) are, e.g. > > > by means of an online wiki that documents many of them. > > > > > > As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a > > > wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org > > > account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC. > > > > > > I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social > > > liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly > > > explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I > > > might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a > > > technical background, by living in a small European country which > > > is not part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable > > > experiences of being put under severe pressure by more powerful > > > countries, and by having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor > > > people in Kenya. > > > > > > The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that > > > lists the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the > > > IGC wiki homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with > > > one of them. > > > > > > The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include > > > - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants > > > without risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I > > > have endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of > > > viewpoint that I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when > > > that label is then used in reference to the kind of views that I > > > have been advocating.) > > > - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding > > > on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such > > > background understanding can be provided e.g. by links to > > > theoretical treatises on particular viewpoints, by explaining the > > > particular perspectives and experiences that have significantly > > > contributed to shaping a particular viewpoint, etc. > > > - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC > > > > > > Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to > > > self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing > > > with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a > > > “map of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”. > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 09:13:14 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:13:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) In-Reply-To: References: <4825D7DD-C613-4BBE-BB68-7DD68C9EE06C@hserus.net> <54339C61-402B-4AB8-A27C-616277207380@hserus.net> <51BB1F8E.8020006@cafonso.ca> <51BB3AB9.2030309@cafonso.ca> <076901ce6918$fdbcbf20$f9363d60$@gmail.com> <20130615031607.475ad194@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617111712.79e12312@quill.bollow.ch> <20130617141635.67e5c750@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130617151314.433980a5@quill.bollow.ch> Am Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:24:02 +1200 schrieb "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" : > For the record, I am from Fiji which is defined as a small island > developing state. I refuse to be labelled as a Third Worldist because > in doing this I accept that there is a First World, Second World etc. > I refuse to have my identity defined through this means. This does > not mean that I do not recognise that there are diverse contexts and > markets as there is diversity of region, markets and I also recognise > that context shapes meaning. Hi Sala Isn't the term “developing state” also problematic? I mean, all societies are developing in some ways. Some of the changes may be negative rather than positive, or at least there is legitimate plurality of opinions whether some developments are desirable or not. In so-called more “developed” countries, the speed of some kinds of changes might even be greater than corresponding changes in countries that are officially labeled as “developing”. What makes sense from my perspective is Sen's capabilities approach, and the consequent quest to empower individuals and communities to expand the set of capabilities available to them. In any case, I'm wondering how you'd label your kind of perspective. Or would you prefer not to attach any label to it at all? Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 09:24:57 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:24:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] {S} Proposed letter to UN General Assembly In-Reply-To: <0b9b01ce69af$738d81d0$5aa88570$@gmail.com> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <1371275829.38102.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <0b9b01ce69af$738d81d0$5aa88570$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20130617152457.3b648877@quill.bollow.ch> Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >> Should we also address the same concern with UN General Assembly? Michael Gurstein replied: > BTW, do we need a new consensus process to do this? Yes, the first step being that someone puts up a draft letter. The IGC etherpad server allows anyone to start the drafting process for a new document, by creating a new pad. (No special authorization needed.) http://igcaucus.org:9001/ Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Mon Jun 17 09:33:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:33:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] FORMAL CONSENSUS CALL - IGC endorsement: International civil society letter to Congress In-Reply-To: <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> References: <40E410A42FBFD446BAE945897D72F0351FACF317@AMSPRD0410MB386.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> <20130615020925.37d106f6@quill.bollow.ch> <51BC3560.2090505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130617153318.58beff07@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above > > the law. > > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one > can be above the law. I think that international human rights law can reasonably be accepted as being a legitimate form of global law. IMO the main problem there is the weakness of the enforcement mechanisms. WTO rules and international copyright law have a much lower degree of legitimacy (especially given how much the world has changed since those rules were adopted, in ways that at least draw into question the continued validity of the assumptions on which those rule-making processes were based) but much stronger enforcement. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 17 09:49:18 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:19:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) Message-ID: What gets interesting is where two people who self identify with much the same label can be moderates with a technical and policy dual background, hardcore ideologues and possibly shades in between these two extremes.  Self identification becomes quite problematic in this case because the other person's perceptions still come into play to separate out different shades from any particular ideological spectrum.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: Norbert Bollow Date: 06/17/2013 5:46 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > So for example (for clarity, mainly for me) I may say I'm a third > worlder (from India) as well as a third worldist (trying to focus on > improving the developing nations overall) and this would be noted on > the wiki? So that someone who understands that viewpoint would be > able to sympathize/'get' my point better, and someone who does not > get that viewpoint would be perhaps able to reconcile differences and > ask questions accordingly? Yes, exactly... and since it'd be you who enters the term “third worldist” into the wiki as a descriptive term for yourself, together with the explanation “trying to focus on improving the developing nations overall”, it would be clear to all that it is acceptable, and not in any way unfriendly, to refer to that perspective and objective as “third worldist”. Greetings, Norbert > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Chaitanya Dhareshwar wrote: > > > > > "Mapping"? More detail please Nobert, there's newbies (like me) > > > here so not everyone may understand the technical terms... :) > > > > Here's a quick attempt at explaining in somewhat more detail what I > > meant: > > > > Since a significant aspect of what has recently caused heated words > > and hostility on this list seems to have been (a) misunderstandings > > and invalid assumptions about viewpoint of other participants, and > > (b) references to other participants' viewpoints that were > > understood by others to be derogatory and/or otherwise offensive, I > > propose that it would be helpful to increase our mutual > > understanding of what our various viewpoints (I use this term > > broadly in this email, it is intended to include what I have > > previously referred to as “perspectives” and “interests”) are, e.g. > > by means of an online wiki that documents many of them. > > > > As mentioned recently, Sala and I have been discussing setting up a > > wiki for the IGC which would give everyone with an igcaucus.org > > account a personal homepage in relation to the IGC. > > > > I might use that to note e.g. that my viewpoint is broadly a “social > > liberal” one (this might be linked to a wiki page that briefly > > explains what that means in the context of Internet governance). I > > might add that my perspective is significantly shaped by having a > > technical background, by living in a small European country which > > is not part of the EU and which is going through uncomfortable > > experiences of being put under severe pressure by more powerful > > countries, and by having a Kenyan friend who is a pastor among poor > > people in Kenya. > > > > The main part of the “mapping” exercise would be a wiki page that > > lists the various broad categories of viewpoints and links to the > > IGC wiki homepages of those who have chosen to self-identify with > > one of them. > > > > The benefits of such a “map of viewpoints” would include > > - making it easier to refer to viewpoints of IGC participants > > without risk of unintendedly sounding derogatory (after all if I > > have endorsed a particular label as referring to a kind of > > viewpoint that I share, it shouldn't be viewed as offensive when > > that label is then used in reference to the kind of views that I > > have been advocating.) > > - making it reasonably easy to get some background understanding > >   on arguments presented by another IGC participant - such > > background understanding can be provided e.g. by links to > > theoretical treatises on particular viewpoints, by explaining the > > particular perspectives and experiences that have significantly > > contributed to shaping a particular viewpoint, etc. > > - documenting the breadth of viewpoints represented in IGC > > > > Of course it is possible that maybe multiple people all choose to > > self-identify in the same way, even while fundamentally disagreeing > > with each other. Such disagreements could also be documented in a > > “map of civil society viewpoints and perspectives”. > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 17 09:49:57 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:19:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) Message-ID: <77ipoa09vxlwaa7m1muudo07.1371476982793@email.android.com> Applause.  --srs -------- Original message -------- From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" Date: 06/17/2013 5:54 PM (GMT+05:30) To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Norbert Bollow Subject: Re: [governance] Perspectives (was Re: Fwd: And Now the Second Battle of the Internet) For the record, I am from Fiji which is defined as a small island developing state. I refuse to be labelled as a Third Worldist because in doing this I accept that there is a First World, Second World etc. I refuse to have my identity defined through this means. This does not mean that I do not recognise that there are diverse contexts and markets as there is diversity of region, markets and I also recognise that context shapes meaning. Sala (not in my coordinator capacity) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:22:02 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:22:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Carta Internacional Message-ID: No solamente se le debe de enviar la misiva al Congreso Norteamericano, sino también a los siguientes organismos: -ONU -Comisión Europea de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales Para que se pronuncien ante sus Estados miembros y otros vinculados a deliberar a un amplio, y profundo debate transparente sobre: La interferencia con los derechos humanos de los ciudadanos de cualquier país, que de acuerdo con la Carta de la ONU (arts. 55 y 56) obliga a todos sus miembros a promover “El respeto Universal a los Derechos Humanos y a las Libertades Fundamentales de todos. Siendo inaceptable la actual situación de la vigilancia de las telecomunicaciones y comunicaciones digitales que los ciudadanos de cualquier país afrontan en estos momentos, las cuales amenazan gravemente sus derechos a la privacidad de comunicar sus pensamientos privados. Ello no solamente viola y pone en peligro los derechos fundamentales a la libertad de pensamiento, de opinión, de expresión y asociación que es centro de toda práctica democrática, también viola los valores de la dignidad humana, libertad, democracia, igualdad, Estado de Derecho y respeto de los derechos humanos, incluidos los derechos de las personas pertenecientes a minorías. *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/17 Norbert Bollow > Parminder wrote: > > > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above > > > the law. > > > > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one > > can be above the law. > > I think that international human rights law can reasonably be accepted > as being a legitimate form of global law. > > IMO the main problem there is the weakness of the enforcement > mechanisms. > > WTO rules and international copyright law have a much lower degree of > legitimacy (especially given how much the world has changed since > those rules were adopted, in ways that at least draw into question the > continued validity of the assumptions on which those rule-making > processes were based) but much stronger enforcement. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 11:43:16 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:43:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] Carta Internacional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I also suggest OAS. C 2013/6/17 José Félix Arias Ynche > No solamente se le debe de enviar la misiva al Congreso Norteamericano, > sino también a los siguientes organismos: > > > -ONU > > -Comisión Europea de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales > > > > Para que se pronuncien ante sus Estados miembros y otros vinculados a > deliberar a un amplio, y profundo debate transparente sobre: > > > La interferencia con los derechos humanos de los ciudadanos de cualquier > país, que de acuerdo con la Carta de la ONU (arts. 55 y 56) obliga a todos > sus miembros a promover “El respeto Universal a los Derechos Humanos y a > las Libertades Fundamentales de todos. > > > Siendo inaceptable la actual situación de la vigilancia de las > telecomunicaciones y comunicaciones digitales que los ciudadanos de > cualquier país afrontan en estos momentos, las cuales amenazan gravemente > sus derechos a la privacidad de comunicar sus pensamientos privados. > > > Ello no solamente viola y pone en peligro los derechos fundamentales a la > libertad de pensamiento, de opinión, de expresión y asociación que es > centro de toda práctica democrática, también viola los valores de la > dignidad humana, libertad, democracia, igualdad, Estado de Derecho y > respeto de los derechos humanos, incluidos los derechos de las personas > pertenecientes a minorías. > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > > > > > 2013/6/17 Norbert Bollow > >> Parminder wrote: >> >> > On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >> > > I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above >> > > the law. >> > >> > When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one >> > can be above the law. >> >> I think that international human rights law can reasonably be accepted >> as being a legitimate form of global law. >> >> IMO the main problem there is the weakness of the enforcement >> mechanisms. >> >> WTO rules and international copyright law have a much lower degree of >> legitimacy (especially given how much the world has changed since >> those rules were adopted, in ways that at least draw into question the >> continued validity of the assumptions on which those rule-making >> processes were based) but much stronger enforcement. >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> >> -- >> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 14:19:06 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:19:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] (Portuguese) Systemic Implications of the PRISM Program - by Diego Canabarro Message-ID: An article in Portuguese on the PRISM case. *Systemic Implications of the PRISM Program - by Diego Canabarro* If you read Portuguese or Spanish, it worth reading it. Original at: http://mundorama.net/2013/06/16/o-grande-irmao-esta-te-olhando-implicacoes-sistemicas-do-programa-prism-de-monitoramento-de-comunicacoes-digitais-por-diego-rafael-canabarro/ ### * * *O “Grande Irmão” Está te Olhando: Implicações Sistêmicas do Programa PRISM de Monitoramento de Comunicações Digitais[1]<#13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftn1> ** * *Diego Rafael Canabarro** * * Desde o 11/09, nenhum tipo de ataque da escala dos atentados às Torres Gêmeas se repetiu nos Estados Unidos. Isso indica, segundo a lógica do governo norte-americano, o sucesso de medidas como o PRISM– o programa de vigilância e monitoramento de comunicações eletrônicas da Agência de Segurança Nacional dos Estados Unidos. Em grande medida, isso se justifica, no discurso político, como o resultado do aumento da capacidade do país em agir preventivamente, pela imposição de obstáculos à movimentação e à organização física e virtual de terroristas. O PRISM deve ser entendido em um contexto ainda mais amplo de aplicação de tecnologias digitais não só na guerra ao terror, mas também na própria inserção internacional dos Estados Unidos. Devem-se somar a ele, por exemplo, programas que utilizam veículos não tripulados para operações de inteligência e para a condução de ataques contra alvos em terra. Há também programas que se dedicam a apoiar dissidentes em regimes autoritários, inclusive através do financiamento de ferramentas capazes de "derrubar firewalls" para driblar a censura e o isolamento informacional característico desse tipo de regime político. Há um crescente engajamento do Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos (principal responsável pela formulação de sua política externa) no sentido de patrocinar a causa da "liberdade na Internet", em parceria com o setor privado do país. Tudo isso tem duas faces: aquela que aparece para a sociedade norte-americana (e que é, em grande medida, construída pelo discurso político – nos Estados Unidos, geralmente de tom maniqueísta), e aquela que consta dos documentos que circulam com alto grau de sigilo. A comoção por causa do PRISM vem justamente do fato de que a segunda faceta do programa veio à público de maneira não planejada, a partir de um ”whistleblower”, um dedo-duro, justamente numa semana crucial em que se retoma o controverso julgamento do militar (Bradley Manning) que colaborou com a organização *Wikileaks* . Em linhas gerais, o PRISM – segundo os esclarecimentos prestados pelo Diretor Nacional de Inteligência dos EUAlogo depois do vazamento das informações – foi desenvolvido em estrita observação ao ordenamento jurídico norte-americano: ele não pode ser usado intencionalmente para o monitoramento e obtenção de informações de qualquer cidadão norte-americano, ou de qualquer pessoa localizada dentro do país. O governo não pode atuar unilateralmente, ou seja, sem o consentimento das organizações provedoras de serviços e aplicações de Internet. E todas essas operações são supervisionadas pela Corte Administrativa que criada pelo *Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act* (ou FISA, de 1978, emendado em três ocasiões depois do 11/09, inclusive pelo controverso Patriot Actde 2001), que regula a condução de atividades de inteligência do país contra alvos estrangeiros. O FISA, por si só, é controverso do ponto de vista da política internacional: seja por seu caráter invasivo, seja pelo potencial que tem para desrespeitar direitos humanos fundamentais (privacidade, sigilo nas comunicações, etc). Mas há duas questões principais envolvidas com o PRISM que aumentam ainda mais as controvérsias de todo esse conjunto de ações do governo norte-americano: a informação de que empresas de TI do país (* Microsoft*, *Google*, *Apple*, etc.) colaboram extensivamente com o programa, dando acesso aos conteúdos de seus servidores (o que foi prontamente negado por elas, mas não foi negado pelo governo norte-americano). E, principalmente, a dificuldade – num contexto de interconectividade própria da Internet e da natureza multidirecional dos fluxos comunicacionais que se estabelecem através dela – de se delimitar alvos bem específicos e de se evitar que o monitoramento e o acesso à informação sejam também direcionados contra a própria população dos Estados Unidos. Foi o que aconteceu no caso do PRISM: o programa, apesar de ter sido delineado nos termos da legislação e da constituição norte-americana, deu acesso a um rol vastíssimo de informações a empresas terceirizadas, prestadoras de serviços para o setor de inteligência. É extremamente plausível que uma parcela dos funcionários dessas empresas não siga estritamente as normas de uso e de confidencialidade. Foi o que fez Edward Snowdenao denunciar o programa. Não há, na ação norte-americana, nenhuma novidade. Na primeira década deste século, a agenda de segurança dos Estados Unidos ganhou, no setor de TI do país (seja na fabricação de *hardware* e *software *, seja na prestação de serviços), um grande aliado. Aliás, se os republicanos são conhecidos por suas relações viscerais com o complexo militar-industrial, os democratas são conhecidos por sua maior aproximação com as gigantes do setor informacional. O 11/09 e o emprego da Internet pela Al-Qaeda foi instrumental para que o hiato entre os dois campos fosse diminuído: hoje, pode-se falar em um complexo militar-informacional-industrial. Atualmente, mesmo diante do enxugamento do orçamento militar do país, os projetos voltados ao "ciberespaço" mantêm um fluxo constante de investimentos pelo Governo Federal. Prova disso é que, em meio aos cortes realizados nos gastos militares pela administração Obama no início deste ano, o Comando de Defesa Cibernética do país teve sua força de trabalho mais do que quadruplicou . Além disso, produziu-se mais informações entre 2000 e 2010 do que se produziu em todo o século passado. A digitalização facilita a produção, o armazenamento e a disseminação de informações. Diferentes *gadgets*, hoje em dia, funcionam como sensores capazes de captar dados. A indústria de TI contemporânea é capaz de realizar a mineração e a análise de uma enorme quantidade desses dados e gerar informações e conhecimento de todo o tipo. Aliás, é basicamente esse o modelo de negócio das principais empresas de TI que são partes quase que inalienáveis do nosso dia a dia. A *Google*faz isso com nosso histórico de navegação da *Web*. O *Facebook* faz isso com as informações que circulam em nosso meio social. O *Reddit* faz isso com o que as pessoas consomem de diferentes fontes jornalísticas. A * Apple* , com o que as pessoas fazem de seus telefones, *iPods*, etc. Se por um lado todas as “facilidades” da Internet revolucionam a maneira como interagimos socialmente(o *Google* que sugere sítios e ofertas, o *Facebook* que coloca em contato amigos antigos, etc.), por outro, facilitam também a operação de agentes governamentais. Há uma tendência de se olhar apenas para a forma com a qual os governos vêm empregando tecnologia para se aproximar das suas populações, para entregar melhores serviços, abrir espaços de participação e de deliberação *on line*, para prestar contas de maneira mais transparente e aberta. E há uma preocupação menor (na pesquisa e no ciclo de políticas públicas), mesmo em contextos democráticos, com o tipo de ação que os governos tomam a partir da exploração do grande acervo informacional que nós próprios, cidadãos, criamos em nossa existência digital . Nesse ponto, falhamos nós, os usuários, por termos uma preocupação menor com o que empresas privadas das quais nos valemos no uso da Internet podem fazer com as informações que, via de regra, são protegidas constitucionalmente pelo sigilo nas comunicações e pelo direito à privacidade. Como, em grande medida, nossas relações são reguladas por contratos de adesão, deixamos de ler (ou, se lemos, ignoramos) os termos de serviço que permitem tanto a exploração comercial, quanto o repasse de dados para órgãos governamentais (por vezes sem ordem judicial). Apesar de sabermos disso, temos a crença de que esses dados não serão utilizados de maneira prejudicial. E, no caso dos Estados Unidos, as restrições à captura de informações de cidadãos por parte do governo (como uma herança decorrente dos abusos do McCartismo) são bem mais severas do que as impostas ao setor privado. Por isso, virou prática comum do governo norte-americano utilizar as empresas de TI como fonte de informação privilegiada. Um bom exemplo dessa aproximação informal ocorreu em 2009, n a chamada "Revolução Verde"do Irã. Alimentou-se a crença de que o *Twitter* vinha sendo uma ferramenta fundamental em suporte aos protestos da população iraniana. Diante da notícia de que o microblog seria retirado do ar por algumas horas para manutenção, um analista do Departamento de Estado enviou um e-mail à empresaexplicando a importância da manutenção do canal aberto para o levante popular contra a ditadura de Ahmadinejad. Esse e-mail veio a público. Foi basicamente a partir dele – da noção de cooperação entre os Estados Unidos e o *Twitter* – que o regime iraniano arroxou o controle sobre a Internet do país. O caso PRISM vai ter, naturalmente, consequências domésticas, mas também consequências mais amplas, capazes de repercutir no nível sistêmico das relações internacionais. No primeiro caso, é de se esperar que cresça a contestação às práticas do governo Obama em relação à Internet. Basta lembrar que recentemente o suicídio de Aaron Swartze a perseguição a Julian Assange tiveram forte repercussão na atitude dos norte-americanos em relação ao governo. O mesmo acontece com o caso dos controversos ataques sumários com drones, que matam extrajudicialmente indivíduos supostamente ligados a células terroristas. Há, no segundo mandato de Obama, uma pressão crescente contra ações tanto do Poder Executivo, quanto do Poder Legislativo, no que diz respeito ao controle da Internet para a proteção de direitos autorais e o combate à pirataria, para o combate ao terrorismo, e, bem recentemente, para proteger o país da chamada "guerra cibernética". Grande parte da população e da sociedade civil organizada dos Estados Unidos está mobilizada no sentido de querer maior participação em decisões que envolvem *trade-offs* fundamentais como o controle dos fluxos de informação na Internet *versus* a privacidade e o anonimato na Rede; a proteção de direitos autorais nas mãos de editoras *versus* o direito de acessar livremente artigos científicos publicados com dinheiro público; etc. De qualquer forma, é preciso que se diga que grande parte da população do país apoia medidas como o PRISM, pois as considera como o preço a pagar para viver em segurança. Recentemente, o Centro de Pesquisas Pew publicou um estudoque mostra que a maioria dos norte-americanos está disposta a trocar privacidade por segurança. Essa tendência se mantém constante nos últimos anos. Basta lembrar dos recentes atentados durante a maratona de Boston. Durante a semana que se seguiu, até a captura do Tsarnaev mais jovem, o que pude observar (eu estava em Boston no dia do atentado) foi uma sociedade assustada, disposta a abrir mão de direitos fundamentais, a entregar voluntariamente o conteúdo registrado em suas máquinas fotográficas, em seus telefones celulares, e que aplaudiu efusivamente a capacidade de resolução do quebra-cabeças pelas forças de segurança do país, a partir de uma combinação massiva de análise de dados relativos a transações comerciais, de sinais de telefonia celular que indicaram a movimentação dos autores do atentado, de acesso à Internet e de participação em fóruns * online*, e de câmeras de monitoramento (que, diga-se de passagem, dão inveja às tele-telas do Grande Irmão Orwelliano) espalhadas pela cidade. É de se esperar também reações das empresas envolvidas no escândalo, no sentido de retomar parte da credibilidade perdida com ele. No contexto da * Web*, isso não é muito difícil. No dia seguinte às revelações de Snowden, por exemplo, notícias sobre o escândalo, na plataforma de notícias *Reddit*, tinham menos visualizações do que notícias que detalhavam o novo sistema operacional do *iPhone* que será lançado em breve. É de se esperar, também, reações severas do governo norte-americano em relação ao rapaz que trouxe a público informações sigilosas, "colocando em risco a segurança internacional do país". Mas há implicações que me parecem bem mais abrangentes para as relações internacionais como um todo, e que podem ser decisivas para o futuro da Internet. Nos últimos dez anos, a governança da Internet ganhou a agenda internacional . Ela diz respeito à gestão técnica da Rede, mas também às implicações econômicas, políticas, sociais, e culturais mais amplas que a gestão técnica pode ter. Apesar do caráter e da relevância global da Internet e da necessidade da ação coordenada entre atores estatais, o setor privado, a comunidade de técnicos e a sociedade civil como um todo para o funcionamento e para a organização e a regulação semiprivada da Rede, há um desequilíbrio enorme que é inerente à evolução histórica da Internet: grande parte de sua infraestrutura crítica toca o território dos Estados Unidos; a maioria esmagadora dos principais serviços relativos à Internet se concentra no mundo desenvolvido; a principal língua falada na Internet é o inglês. Ao mesmo tempo em que a comunidade internacional procura desenvolver mecanismos institucionais para dar conta, de maneira democrática, participativa e multissetorial , do cenário complexo de organização e funcionamento da Internet, os Estados Unidos têm uma posição privilegiada no *status quo*. Apesar de o país demonstrar disponibilidade em colaborar no processo multissetorial de governança da Internet, e de se apresentar como um grande promotor da causa da Internet “aberta, estável, segura e interoperável”, cada vez mais – especialmente com a revelação de detalhes que orientam as políticas públicas domésticas e internacionais do país, como no caso do PRISM –,fica claro que o país vem usando essa posição privilegiada em prol de seus próprios interesses no plano internacional em detrimento dos interesses do resto do mundo. Essa é a tônica da diretiva presidencial que vazoujunto com os detalhes sobre o PRISM. De forma declarada, o presidente Obama diz: "temos de desenvolver o uso do ciberespaço (da Internet), como uma parte integral da promoção de nossos interesses em tempos de paz, de crise, e até mesmo de guerra. Para isso estamos dispostos a empregar nossa experiência e nossas capacidades concentradas nesse campo." Isso pode ser traduzido da seguinte forma: a maior parte dos fluxos informacionais que circulam pela Internet ou passam por nossa infraestrutura física, ou estão armazenadas nos servidores dos principais gigantes da TI na atualidade, que são americanos. Valhamo-nos disso para ganhar vantagem sobre nossos adversários nas relações internacionais. No contexto competitivo e anárquico das relações internacionais, tal situação pode levar ao reforço de ações isoladas pelos diferentes países com a finalidade de obterem maior controle sobre a Internet, de maneira a diminuir a assimetria de poder (político e econômico) que decorre do protagonismo norte-americano. É basicamente esse tipo de controvérsia política que marcou a Conferência Mundial sobre a Regulação das Telecomunicações , promovida pela UIT em Dubai no final de 2012. Em última análise, esse tipo de competição (em detrimento da cooperação necessária para a organização e o funcionamento da Internet) pode levar à fragmentação da Rede como a conhecemos hoje. Muitas pessoas, ao saberem do caso norte-americano, perguntam se é possível que o governo brasileiro empregue as mesmas técnicas e desenvolva programas semelhantes ao PRISM. Em termos teóricos, é possível que qualquer órgão governamental tenha acesso a bases de dados diversas, tanto a partir de cooperação com o setor privado, quanto a partir de medidas coercivas (dispositivos legais e ordens judiciais, por exemplo), que obriguem os donos dessas bases a compartilhá-las ou mesmo ceder o direito de controle direto sobre as mesmas. É também possível que o Estado desenvolva a capacidade de acessar essas bases de dados de maneira clandestina. Entretanto, em termos práticos, é preciso que se leve em consideração os quadros político-institucional e jurídico envolvidos, assim como as capacidades e os recursos materiais disponíveis para a realização de tais atividades. Apesar de a atividade de inteligência ser ainda precária no Brasil, pode-se dizer que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro é bastante restritivo a ações que violem as liberdades fundamentais dos cidadãos; os órgãos de Estado, nesse caso, operam preponderantemente segundo os limites da lei e no escopo da autorização judicial(que, no país, é condição *sine qua non* para qualquer quebra de sigilo de correspondência, telefônico, e de comunicações eletrônicas). O Brasil, como aponta o *Google*, é um dos principais países que ordena, judicialmente, a entrega de informações judiciais. Isso leva a crer que há, nesse caso, estrita observação dos procedimentos legais para o acesso a bases de dados públicas e privadas. O Marco Civil da Internet– que é de suma importância para determinar os direitos e deveres da comunidade envolvida com a Internet no Brasil – trata, em parte, disto: do que é tolerável e do que não é em termos de guarda de registros de acesso e de comunicação por empresas de TI, e do maior ou menor acesso, pela via judicial, a esses dados. Postergar o Marco Civil – como vem sendo feito no Congresso em virtude do forte lobby exercido, em grande medida, pelas operadoras de telecomunicaçãoque atuam no Brasil – gera insegurança jurídica que pode levar a abusos parecidos com o PRISM. Mesmo que tenha crescido o investimento na capacitação do funcionalismo público nos últimos anos, especialmente no que diz respeito à operação no ciberespaço (a excelência do Brasil no combate a ilícitos cibernéticos e na arrecadação de tributos são casos de destaque internacional), é preciso que se reconheça as limitações estruturais que o país enfrenta quando é comparado com os Estados Unidos. Afinal, de todo o *backbone* das redes de telecomunicação de alcance mundial, apenas uma ínfima parte toca o território brasileiro. E, do agregado de empresas que controlam as bases de dados correspondentes, uma parcela ainda menor se localiza no país. Isso dificulta não apenas a execução de medidas coercivas, mas também o próprio alcance do consentimento necessário para a abertura de tais bases de dados. A importância dessa revelação está em conscientizar as pessoas das consequências do uso de tecnologias digitais. O que é colocado nas redes sociais, por exemplo, fica armazenado por tempo indeterminado nos servidores das empresas que as mantêm. Se há um componente de cautela do ponto de vista do usuários que precisa ser fomentado, é também preciso que se criem e se revisem as regras a respeito do que se pode fazer com os dados que trafegam pela Rede e que são armazenados nos computadores de empresas e órgãos governamentais. O Brasil – através da ideia deter sua própria Carta de Direitos Fundamentais para a Internet, formulada com ampla participação popular – tem avançado no processo de adaptação do ordenamento jurídico ao cenário sociotécnico complexo do mundo contemporâneo. A paralisia da iniciativa, nos termos atuais, é um retrocesso com custo altíssimo para a população, ainda que isso tenha bem menos espaço do que deveria na agenda política do país. ------------------------------ <#13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftnref1>(*) Diego R. Canabarro é doutorando em Ciência Política da Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). É assistente de ensino e pesquisa no CEGOV/UFRGS. Atualmente realiza estágio doutoral BEX/CAPES n. 8171/12-2 no *National Center for Digital Government* (http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/) da Universidade de Massachusetts, Amherst, nos Estados Unidos. [1] Este texto é uma reprodução articulada da íntegra das respostas que o autor concedeu à entrevista publicada no Jornal Estado de São Paulo no dia 12/06/2013, na seção Internacional, p. A11. Versão *online *da entrevista encontra disponível em: http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,a-quebra-de-sigilo-em-democracias-e-excecao-,1041380,0.htm. Acesso em: 13/06/2013. Gostaria de agradecer imensamente ao jornalista Lourival Sant’anna pela fidedignidade com que reproduziu minhas respostas. E a Thiago Borne e Lídia Lage pela paciência na revisão final deste texto. -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 15:13:34 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:13:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ley_de_Comunicaci=F3n_de_Ecuador?= In-Reply-To: <40A9AB8B-5F92-43C1-801F-B1767BBBE424@gmail.com> References: <40A9AB8B-5F92-43C1-801F-B1767BBBE424@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi all, I am not sure if folks had the time to review this, but this brings up a lot of the same discussions we had in Brazil and in the recent Human Rights reports. It deals with freedom of expression and privacy online, and also ISP liability (see e.g article 20 and 21), all under the umbrella of "Communications". It also updates the right of privacy regarding private communications in article 31, which also asks for court order in cases of surveillance during investigations.... Anyway, it deserves some attention regarding regulation trends in latin America. Carolina 2013/6/16 Carlos Vera Quintana > Para su análisis y comentarios la nueva ley de comunicación del Ecuador > > @el_telegrafo publica en impreso y en línea la Ley de Comunicación. Para > enterarnos de nuestros derechos! > > > http://www.telegrafo.com.ec/images/eltelegrafo/Actualidad/2013/14-06-13-texto-final-proyecto-ley-comunicacion.pdf > > Carlos Vera > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 15:19:35 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:19:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Diego Canabarro y su sustento Message-ID: ...Bueno ya empezaron las justificaciones para el proyecto PRISM de los Estados Unidos. Se aduce que por ataques repetidos después del incidente a las torres gemelas;... el seguimiento y vigilancia a las comunicaciones electrónicas se justifica...O sea ya empezó a funcionar la prensa adicta o pagada, empezando a justificar la interceptación telefónica, la de correspondencia digital y de las páginas sociales, en forma clandestina. Esto me imagino no va a quedar allí, se viene una avalancha de justificaciones para lavar la conciencia de las personas en pro de los intereses de los EE.UU. Sin respetar los Derechos Humanos consagrados en la Carta de la ONU (arts. 55 y 56) que dicen así: Los derechos humanos son derechos inherentes a todos los seres humanos, sin distinción alguna de nacionalidad, lugar de residencia, sexo, origen nacional o étnico, color, religión, lengua, o cualquier otra condición. Los derechos humanos incluyen tanto derechos como obligaciones. Los Estados asumen las obligaciones y los deberes, en virtud del derecho internacional, de respetar, proteger y realizar los derechos humanos. La obligación de respetarlos significa que los Estados deben abstenerse de interferir en el disfrute de los derechos humanos, o de limitarlos. La obligación de protegerlos exige que los Estados impidan los abusos de los derechos humanos contra individuos y grupos. La obligación de realizarlos significa que los Estados deben adoptar medidas positivas para facilitar el disfrute de los derechos humanos básicos. *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/17 Carolina Rossini > An article in Portuguese on the PRISM case. > *Systemic Implications of the PRISM Program - by Diego Canabarro* > If you read Portuguese or Spanish, it worth reading it. > > Original at: > http://mundorama.net/2013/06/16/o-grande-irmao-esta-te-olhando-implicacoes-sistemicas-do-programa-prism-de-monitoramento-de-comunicacoes-digitais-por-diego-rafael-canabarro/ > > > > ### > * > * > *O “Grande Irmão” Está te Olhando: Implicações Sistêmicas do Programa > PRISM de Monitoramento de Comunicações Digitais[1]<#13f535d26f81d585_13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftn1> > ** * > > *Diego Rafael Canabarro** > > * * > > Desde o 11/09, nenhum tipo de ataque da escala dos atentados às Torres > Gêmeas se repetiu nos Estados Unidos. Isso indica, segundo a lógica do > governo norte-americano, o sucesso de medidas como o PRISM– o programa de vigilância e monitoramento de comunicações eletrônicas da Agência > de Segurança Nacional dos Estados Unidos. > > Em grande medida, isso se justifica, no discurso político, como o > resultado do aumento da capacidade do país em agir preventivamente, pela > imposição de obstáculos à movimentação e à organização física e virtual de > terroristas. O PRISM deve ser entendido em um contexto ainda mais amplo de > aplicação de tecnologias digitais não só na guerra ao terror, mas também na > própria inserção internacional dos Estados Unidos. Devem-se somar a ele, > por exemplo, programas que utilizam veículos não tripulados para operações > de inteligência e para a condução de ataques contra alvos em terra. Há > também programas que se dedicam a apoiar dissidentes em regimes > autoritários, inclusive através do financiamento de ferramentas capazes de > "derrubar firewalls" para driblar a censura e o isolamento informacional > característico desse tipo de regime político. Há um crescente engajamento > do Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos (principal responsável pela > formulação de sua política externa) no sentido de patrocinar a causa da > "liberdade na Internet", > em parceria com o setor privado do país. > > Tudo isso tem duas faces: aquela que aparece para a sociedade > norte-americana (e que é, em grande medida, construída pelo discurso > político – nos Estados Unidos, geralmente de tom maniqueísta), e aquela que > consta dos documentos que circulam com alto grau de sigilo. A comoção por > causa do PRISM vem justamente do fato de que a segunda faceta do programa > veio à público de maneira não planejada, a partir de um ”whistleblower”, um > dedo-duro, justamente numa semana crucial em que se retoma o controverso > julgamento do militar (Bradley Manning) > que colaborou com a organização *Wikileaks* . > > Em linhas gerais, o PRISM – segundo os esclarecimentos prestados pelo > Diretor Nacional de Inteligência dos EUAlogo depois do vazamento das informações – foi desenvolvido em estrita > observação ao ordenamento jurídico norte-americano: ele não pode ser usado > intencionalmente para o monitoramento e obtenção de informações de qualquer > cidadão norte-americano, ou de qualquer pessoa localizada dentro do país. O > governo não pode atuar unilateralmente, ou seja, sem o consentimento das > organizações provedoras de serviços e aplicações de Internet. E todas essas > operações são supervisionadas pela Corte Administrativa que criada pelo *Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Act* (ou FISA, de 1978, emendado em três ocasiões depois do 11/09, inclusive > pelo controverso Patriot Actde 2001), que regula a condução de atividades de inteligência do país > contra alvos estrangeiros. > > O FISA, por si só, é controverso do ponto de vista da política > internacional: seja por seu caráter invasivo, seja pelo potencial que tem > para desrespeitar direitos humanos fundamentais (privacidade, sigilo nas > comunicações, etc). Mas há duas questões principais envolvidas com o PRISM > que aumentam ainda mais as controvérsias de todo esse conjunto de ações do > governo norte-americano: a informação de que empresas de TI do país (* > Microsoft*, *Google*, *Apple*, etc.) colaboram extensivamente com o > programa, > dando acesso aos conteúdos de seus servidores (o que foi prontamente negado > por elas, mas não foi negado pelo governo norte-americano). E, > principalmente, a dificuldade – num contexto de interconectividade própria > da Internet e da natureza multidirecional dos fluxos comunicacionais que se > estabelecem através dela – de se delimitar alvos bem específicos e de se > evitar que o monitoramento e o acesso à informação sejam também > direcionados contra a própria população dos Estados Unidos. > > Foi o que aconteceu no caso do PRISM: o programa, apesar de ter sido > delineado nos termos da legislação e da constituição norte-americana, deu > acesso a um rol vastíssimo de informações a empresas terceirizadas, > prestadoras de serviços para o setor de inteligência. É extremamente > plausível que uma parcela dos funcionários dessas empresas não siga > estritamente as normas de uso e de confidencialidade. Foi o que fez Edward > Snowdenao denunciar o programa. > > Não há, na ação norte-americana, nenhuma novidade. > Na primeira década deste século, a agenda de segurança dos Estados Unidos > ganhou, no setor de TI do país (seja na fabricação de *hardware* e * > software*, seja na prestação de serviços), um grande aliado. Aliás, se os > republicanos são conhecidos por suas relações viscerais com o complexo > militar-industrial, os democratas são conhecidos por sua maior aproximação > com as gigantes do setor informacional. O 11/09 e o emprego da Internet > pela Al-Qaeda foi instrumental para que o hiato entre os dois campos fosse > diminuído: hoje, pode-se falar em um complexo > militar-informacional-industrial. Atualmente, mesmo diante do enxugamento > do orçamento militar do país, os projetos voltados ao "ciberespaço" mantêm > um fluxo constante de investimentos pelo Governo Federal. Prova disso é > que, em meio aos cortes realizados nos gastos militares pela administração > Obama no início deste ano, o Comando de Defesa Cibernética do país teve > sua força de trabalho mais do que quadruplicou > . > > Além disso, produziu-se mais informações entre 2000 e 2010 do que se > produziu em todo o século passado. A digitalização facilita a produção, o > armazenamento e a disseminação de informações. Diferentes *gadgets*, hoje > em dia, funcionam como sensores capazes de captar dados. A indústria de > TI contemporânea é capaz de realizar a mineração e a análise de uma enorme > quantidade desses dados e gerar informações e conhecimento de todo o tipo. > Aliás, é basicamente esse o modelo de negócio das principais empresas de TI > que são partes quase que inalienáveis do nosso dia a dia. A *Google*faz isso com nosso histórico de navegação da > *Web*. O *Facebook* faz isso com as informações > que circulam em nosso meio social. O *Reddit* faz > isso com o que as pessoas consomem de diferentes fontes jornalísticas. A * > Apple* , com o que as pessoas fazem de seus > telefones, *iPods*, etc. Se por um lado todas as “facilidades” da > Internet revolucionam a maneira como interagimos socialmente(o *Google*que sugere sítios e ofertas, o > *Facebook* que coloca em contato amigos antigos, etc.), por outro, > facilitam também a operação de agentes governamentais. Há uma tendência de > se olhar apenas para a forma com a qual os governos vêm empregando > tecnologia para se aproximar das suas populações, para entregar melhores > serviços, abrir espaços de participação e de deliberação *on line*, para > prestar contas de maneira mais transparente e aberta. E há uma preocupação > menor (na pesquisa e no ciclo de políticas públicas), mesmo em contextos > democráticos, com o tipo de ação que os governos tomam a partir da > exploração do grande acervo informacional que nós próprios, cidadãos, > criamos em nossa existência digital > . > > Nesse ponto, falhamos nós, os usuários, por termos uma preocupação menor > com o que empresas privadas das quais nos valemos no uso da Internet podem > fazer com as informações que, via de regra, são protegidas > constitucionalmente pelo sigilo nas comunicações e pelo direito à > privacidade. Como, em grande medida, nossas relações são reguladas por > contratos de adesão, deixamos de ler (ou, se lemos, ignoramos) os termos de > serviço que permitem tanto a exploração comercial, quanto o repasse de > dados para órgãos governamentais (por vezes sem ordem judicial). Apesar de > sabermos disso, temos a crença de que esses dados não serão utilizados de > maneira prejudicial. E, no caso dos Estados Unidos, as restrições à captura > de informações de cidadãos por parte do governo (como uma herança > decorrente dos abusos do McCartismo) > são bem mais severas do que as impostas ao setor privado. Por isso, virou > prática comum do governo norte-americano utilizar as empresas de TI como > fonte de informação privilegiada. Um bom exemplo dessa aproximação informal > ocorreu em 2009, n a chamada "Revolução Verde"do Irã. Alimentou-se a crença de que o > *Twitter* vinha sendo uma ferramenta fundamental > em suporte aos protestos da população iraniana. Diante da notícia de que o > microblog seria retirado do ar por algumas horas para manutenção, um > analista do Departamento de Estado enviou um e-mail à empresaexplicando a importância da manutenção do canal aberto para o levante > popular contra a ditadura de Ahmadinejad. Esse e-mail veio a público. Foi > basicamente a partir dele – da noção de cooperação entre os Estados Unidos > e o *Twitter* – que o regime iraniano arroxou o controle sobre a Internet > do país. > > O caso PRISM vai ter, naturalmente, consequências domésticas, mas também > consequências mais amplas, capazes de repercutir no nível sistêmico das > relações internacionais. No primeiro caso, é de se esperar que cresça a > contestação às práticas do governo Obama em relação à Internet. Basta > lembrar que recentemente o suicídio de Aaron Swartze a perseguição a Julian > Assange tiveram forte > repercussão na atitude dos norte-americanos em relação ao governo. O mesmo > acontece com o caso dos controversos ataques sumários com drones, que matam > extrajudicialmente indivíduos supostamente ligados a células terroristas. > Há, no segundo mandato de Obama, uma pressão crescente contra ações tanto > do Poder Executivo, quanto do Poder Legislativo, no que diz respeito ao controle > da Internet para a proteção de direitos > autorais e o combate à pirataria, para o combate ao terrorismo, e, bem > recentemente, para proteger o país da chamada "guerra cibernética". Grande > parte da população e da sociedade civil organizada dos Estados Unidos está > mobilizada no sentido de querer maior participação em decisões que envolvem > *trade-offs* fundamentais como o controle dos fluxos de informação na > Internet *versus* a privacidade e o anonimato na Rede; a proteção de > direitos autorais nas mãos de editoras *versus* o direito de acessar > livremente artigos científicos publicados com dinheiro público; etc. > > De qualquer forma, é preciso que se diga que grande parte da população do > país apoia medidas como o PRISM, pois as considera como o preço a pagar > para viver em segurança. Recentemente, o Centro de Pesquisas Pew publicou > um estudoque mostra que a maioria dos norte-americanos está disposta a trocar > privacidade por segurança. Essa tendência se mantém constante nos últimos > anos. Basta lembrar dos recentes atentados durante a maratona de Boston. > Durante a semana que se seguiu, até a captura do Tsarnaev mais jovem, o que > pude observar (eu estava em Boston no dia do atentado) foi uma sociedade > assustada, disposta a abrir mão de direitos fundamentais, a entregar > voluntariamente o conteúdo registrado em suas máquinas fotográficas, em > seus telefones celulares, e que aplaudiu efusivamente a capacidade de > resolução do quebra-cabeças pelas forças de segurança do país, a partir de > uma combinação massiva de análise de dados relativos a transações > comerciais, de sinais de telefonia celular que indicaram a movimentação dos > autores do atentado, de acesso à Internet e de participação em fóruns * > online*, e de câmeras de monitoramento (que, diga-se de passagem, dão > inveja às tele-telas do Grande Irmão Orwelliano) espalhadas pela cidade. É > de se esperar também reações das empresas envolvidas no escândalo, no > sentido de retomar parte da credibilidade perdida com ele. No contexto da > *Web*, isso não é muito difícil. No dia seguinte às revelações de > Snowden, por exemplo, notícias sobre o escândalo, na plataforma de notícias > *Reddit*, tinham menos visualizações do que notícias que detalhavam o > novo sistema operacional do *iPhone* que será lançado em breve. É de se > esperar, também, reações severas do governo norte-americano em relação ao > rapaz que trouxe a público informações sigilosas, "colocando em risco a > segurança internacional do país". > > Mas há implicações que me parecem bem mais abrangentes para as relações > internacionais como um todo, e que podem ser decisivas para o futuro da > Internet. Nos últimos dez anos, a governança da Internet ganhou a agenda > internacional . Ela diz > respeito à gestão técnica da Rede, mas também às implicações econômicas, > políticas, sociais, e culturais mais amplas que a gestão técnica pode ter. > Apesar do caráter e da relevância global da Internet e da necessidade da > ação coordenada entre atores estatais, o setor privado, a comunidade de > técnicos e a sociedade civil como um todo para o funcionamento e para a > organização e a regulação semiprivada da Rede, há um desequilíbrio enorme > que é inerente à evolução histórica da Internet: grande parte de sua > infraestrutura crítica toca o território dos Estados Unidos; a maioria > esmagadora dos principais serviços relativos à Internet se concentra no > mundo desenvolvido; a principal língua falada na Internet é o inglês. > > Ao mesmo tempo em que a comunidade internacional procura desenvolver > mecanismos institucionais para dar conta, de maneira democrática, > participativa e multissetorial , > do cenário complexo de organização e funcionamento da Internet, os Estados > Unidos têm uma posição privilegiada no *status quo*. Apesar de o país > demonstrar disponibilidade em colaborar no processo multissetorial de > governança da Internet, e de se apresentar como um grande promotor da > causa da Internet “aberta, estável, segura e interoperável”, > cada vez mais – especialmente com a revelação de detalhes que orientam as > políticas públicas domésticas e internacionais do país, como no caso do > PRISM –,fica claro que o país vem usando essa posição privilegiada em prol > de seus próprios interesses no plano internacional em detrimento dos > interesses do resto do mundo. Essa é a tônica da diretiva presidencial > que vazoujunto com os detalhes sobre o PRISM. De forma declarada, o presidente Obama > diz: "temos de desenvolver o uso do ciberespaço (da Internet), como uma > parte integral da promoção de nossos interesses em tempos de paz, de crise, > e até mesmo de guerra. Para isso estamos dispostos a empregar nossa > experiência e nossas capacidades concentradas nesse campo." Isso pode ser > traduzido da seguinte forma: a maior parte dos fluxos informacionais que > circulam pela Internet ou passam por nossa infraestrutura física, ou estão > armazenadas nos servidores dos principais gigantes da TI na atualidade, que > são americanos. Valhamo-nos disso para ganhar vantagem sobre nossos > adversários nas relações internacionais. > > No contexto competitivo e anárquico das relações internacionais, tal > situação pode levar ao reforço de ações isoladas pelos diferentes países > com a finalidade de obterem maior controle sobre a Internet, de maneira a > diminuir a assimetria de poder (político e econômico) que decorre do > protagonismo norte-americano. É basicamente esse tipo de controvérsia > política que marcou a Conferência Mundial sobre a Regulação das > Telecomunicações , > promovida pela UIT em Dubai no final de 2012. Em última análise, esse tipo > de competição (em detrimento da cooperação necessária para a organização e > o funcionamento da Internet) pode levar à fragmentação da Rede como a > conhecemos hoje. > > Muitas pessoas, ao saberem do caso norte-americano, perguntam se é > possível que o governo brasileiro empregue as mesmas técnicas e desenvolva > programas semelhantes ao PRISM. Em termos teóricos, é possível que qualquer > órgão governamental tenha acesso a bases de dados diversas, tanto a partir > de cooperação com o setor privado, quanto a partir de medidas coercivas > (dispositivos legais e ordens judiciais, por exemplo), que obriguem os > donos dessas bases a compartilhá-las ou mesmo ceder o direito de controle > direto sobre as mesmas. É também possível que o Estado desenvolva a > capacidade de acessar essas bases de dados de maneira clandestina. > Entretanto, em termos práticos, é preciso que se leve em consideração os > quadros político-institucional e jurídico envolvidos, assim como as > capacidades e os recursos materiais disponíveis para a realização de tais > atividades. > > Apesar de a atividade de inteligência ser ainda precária no Brasil, > pode-se dizer que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro é bastante restritivo a > ações que violem as liberdades fundamentais dos cidadãos; os órgãos de > Estado, nesse caso, operam preponderantemente segundo os limites da lei e > no escopo da autorização judicial(que, no país, é condição > *sine qua non* para qualquer quebra de sigilo de correspondência, > telefônico, e de comunicações eletrônicas). O Brasil, como aponta o * > Google* , > é um dos principais países que ordena, judicialmente, a entrega de > informações judiciais. Isso leva a crer que há, nesse caso, estrita > observação dos procedimentos legais para o acesso a bases de dados públicas > e privadas. > > O Marco Civil da Internet– que é de suma importância para determinar os direitos e deveres da > comunidade envolvida com a Internet no Brasil – trata, em parte, disto: do > que é tolerável e do que não é em termos de guarda de registros de acesso e > de comunicação por empresas de TI, e do maior ou menor acesso, pela via > judicial, a esses dados. Postergar o Marco Civil – como vem sendo feito no > Congresso em virtude do forte lobby exercido, em grande medida, pelas > operadoras de telecomunicaçãoque atuam no Brasil – gera insegurança jurídica que pode levar a abusos > parecidos com o PRISM. > > Mesmo que tenha crescido o investimento na capacitação do funcionalismo > público nos últimos anos, especialmente no que diz respeito à operação no > ciberespaço (a excelência do Brasil no combate a ilícitos cibernéticos e na > arrecadação de tributos são casos de destaque internacional), é preciso que > se reconheça as limitações estruturais que o país enfrenta quando é > comparado com os Estados Unidos. Afinal, de todo o *backbone* das redes > de telecomunicação de alcance mundial, apenas uma ínfima parte toca o > território brasileiro. E, do agregado de empresas que controlam as bases de > dados correspondentes, uma parcela ainda menor se localiza no país. Isso > dificulta não apenas a execução de medidas coercivas, mas também o próprio > alcance do consentimento necessário para a abertura de tais bases de dados. > > A importância dessa revelação está em conscientizar as pessoas das > consequências do uso de tecnologias digitais. O que é colocado nas redes > sociais, por exemplo, fica armazenado por tempo indeterminado nos > servidores das empresas que as mantêm. Se há um componente de cautela do > ponto de vista do usuários que precisa ser fomentado, é também preciso que > se criem e se revisem as regras a respeito do que se pode fazer com os > dados que trafegam pela Rede e que são armazenados nos computadores de > empresas e órgãos governamentais. O Brasil – através da ideia deter sua > própria Carta de Direitos Fundamentais para a Internet, formulada com > ampla participação popular – tem > avançado no processo de adaptação do ordenamento jurídico ao cenário > sociotécnico complexo do mundo contemporâneo. A paralisia da iniciativa, > nos termos atuais, é um retrocesso com custo altíssimo para a população, > ainda que isso tenha bem menos espaço do que deveria na agenda política do > país. > ------------------------------ > > <#13f535d26f81d585_13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftnref1>(*) Diego > R. Canabarro é doutorando em Ciência Política da Universidade Federal do > Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). É assistente de ensino e pesquisa no > CEGOV/UFRGS. Atualmente realiza estágio doutoral BEX/CAPES n. 8171/12-2 no > *National Center for Digital Government* ( > http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/) da Universidade de Massachusetts, > Amherst, nos Estados Unidos. > > [1] Este texto é uma reprodução articulada da íntegra das respostas que o > autor concedeu à entrevista publicada no Jornal Estado de São Paulo no dia > 12/06/2013, na seção Internacional, p. A11. Versão *online *da entrevista > encontra disponível em: > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,a-quebra-de-sigilo-em-democracias-e-excecao-,1041380,0.htm. > Acesso em: 13/06/2013. Gostaria de agradecer imensamente ao jornalista > Lourival Sant’anna pela fidedignidade com que reproduziu minhas respostas. > E a Thiago Borne e Lídia Lage pela paciência na revisão final deste texto. > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > > > -- > *Carolina Rossini* > http://carolinarossini.net/ > + 1 6176979389 > *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* > skype: carolrossini > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 15:22:45 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:22:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] On the Internet, Privacy... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Silvio Lemos Meira Date: Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:58 PM Subject: [berkmanfriends] On the Internet, Privacy... To: Berkman Friends dear all, some of my postgrad students and myself did a 5 day effort to put together a beta version of a paper on why the future of privacy on the net needs NEW software architecture as a basis. it is a very early beta, alfa maybe, and we'd love to hear your thoughts on it. it's been uploaded to academia.edu. "On the Internet, Privacy and the Need for a New Architecture of Networked Information Services" ~here> bit.ly/14bZ2kE cheers, s -- ................... "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.” [Calvin] ---------- You are subscribed to the BerkmanFriends discussion list. Mailing list options: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/berkmanfriends Mailing list members: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/review/berkmanfriends Reminder: emails sent through this list are considered on-record unless otherwise noted. -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Jun 17 15:56:33 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:56:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Diego Canabarro y su sustento In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Estimado José, gracias por la consideración. Sin embargo, mi texto no es - de ninguna manera - la justificación de las acciones de los Estados Unidos. Él sólo reconoce lo que muchos otros (ver las referencias en los hyperlinks) documentaron acerca de la tendencia y trata de señalar los riesgos de este tipo de dinámicas de 'power politics' por lo que se ha logrado en el contexto de la gobernanza de Internet. Recuerde, sin embargo, que la idea detrás del texto es educar a la población brasileña sobre la importancia de la adopción del Marco Civil de Internet en el país. Saludos. 2013/6/17 José Félix Arias Ynche > ...Bueno ya empezaron las justificaciones para el proyecto PRISM de los > Estados Unidos. > > > Se aduce que por ataques repetidos después del incidente a las torres > gemelas;... el seguimiento y vigilancia a las comunicaciones electrónicas > se justifica...O sea ya empezó a funcionar la prensa adicta o pagada, > empezando a justificar la interceptación telefónica, la de correspondencia > digital y de las páginas sociales, en forma clandestina. > > > Esto me imagino no va a quedar allí, se viene una avalancha de > justificaciones para lavar la conciencia de las personas en pro de los > intereses de los EE.UU. > > > Sin respetar los Derechos Humanos consagrados en la Carta de la ONU (arts. > 55 y 56) que dicen así: > > > > Los derechos > humanos son derechos inherentes a todos los seres humanos, sin distinción > alguna de nacionalidad, lugar de residencia, sexo, origen nacional o > étnico, color, religión, lengua, o cualquier otra condición. > > > Los derechos humanos incluyen tanto derechos como obligaciones. > > > Los Estados asumen las obligaciones y los deberes, en virtud del derecho > internacional, de respetar, proteger y realizar los derechos humanos. > > > La obligación de respetarlos significa que los Estados deben abstenerse de > interferir en el disfrute de los derechos humanos, o de limitarlos. La > obligación de protegerlos exige que los Estados impidan los abusos de los > derechos humanos contra individuos y grupos. > > La obligación de realizarlos significa que los Estados deben adoptar > medidas positivas para facilitar el disfrute de los derechos humanos > básicos. > > > > *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* > * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* > > > 2013/6/17 Carolina Rossini > >> An article in Portuguese on the PRISM case. >> *Systemic Implications of the PRISM Program - by Diego Canabarro* >> If you read Portuguese or Spanish, it worth reading it. >> >> Original at: >> http://mundorama.net/2013/06/16/o-grande-irmao-esta-te-olhando-implicacoes-sistemicas-do-programa-prism-de-monitoramento-de-comunicacoes-digitais-por-diego-rafael-canabarro/ >> >> >> >> ### >> * >> * >> *O “Grande Irmão” Está te Olhando: Implicações Sistêmicas do Programa >> PRISM de Monitoramento de Comunicações Digitais[1]<#13f5394739b08982_13f535d26f81d585_13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftn1> >> ** * >> >> *Diego Rafael Canabarro** >> >> * * >> >> Desde o 11/09, nenhum tipo de ataque da escala dos atentados às Torres >> Gêmeas se repetiu nos Estados Unidos. Isso indica, segundo a lógica do >> governo norte-americano, o sucesso de medidas como o PRISM– o programa de vigilância e monitoramento de comunicações eletrônicas da Agência >> de Segurança Nacional dos Estados Unidos. >> >> Em grande medida, isso se justifica, no discurso político, como o >> resultado do aumento da capacidade do país em agir preventivamente, pela >> imposição de obstáculos à movimentação e à organização física e virtual de >> terroristas. O PRISM deve ser entendido em um contexto ainda mais amplo de >> aplicação de tecnologias digitais não só na guerra ao terror, mas também na >> própria inserção internacional dos Estados Unidos. Devem-se somar a ele, >> por exemplo, programas que utilizam veículos não tripulados para operações >> de inteligência e para a condução de ataques contra alvos em terra. Há >> também programas que se dedicam a apoiar dissidentes em regimes >> autoritários, inclusive através do financiamento de ferramentas capazes de >> "derrubar firewalls" para driblar a censura e o isolamento informacional >> característico desse tipo de regime político. Há um crescente engajamento >> do Departamento de Estado dos Estados Unidos (principal responsável pela >> formulação de sua política externa) no sentido de patrocinar a causa da >> "liberdade na Internet", >> em parceria com o setor privado do país. >> >> Tudo isso tem duas faces: aquela que aparece para a sociedade >> norte-americana (e que é, em grande medida, construída pelo discurso >> político – nos Estados Unidos, geralmente de tom maniqueísta), e aquela que >> consta dos documentos que circulam com alto grau de sigilo. A comoção por >> causa do PRISM vem justamente do fato de que a segunda faceta do programa >> veio à público de maneira não planejada, a partir de um ”whistleblower”, um >> dedo-duro, justamente numa semana crucial em que se retoma o controverso >> julgamento do militar (Bradley Manning) >> que colaborou com a organização *Wikileaks* . >> >> Em linhas gerais, o PRISM – segundo os esclarecimentos prestados pelo >> Diretor Nacional de Inteligência dos EUAlogo depois do vazamento das informações – foi desenvolvido em estrita >> observação ao ordenamento jurídico norte-americano: ele não pode ser usado >> intencionalmente para o monitoramento e obtenção de informações de qualquer >> cidadão norte-americano, ou de qualquer pessoa localizada dentro do país. O >> governo não pode atuar unilateralmente, ou seja, sem o consentimento das >> organizações provedoras de serviços e aplicações de Internet. E todas essas >> operações são supervisionadas pela Corte Administrativa que criada pelo *Foreign >> Intelligence Surveillance Act* (ou FISA, de 1978, emendado em três ocasiões depois do 11/09, inclusive >> pelo controverso Patriot Actde 2001), que regula a condução de atividades de inteligência do país >> contra alvos estrangeiros. >> >> O FISA, por si só, é controverso do ponto de vista da política >> internacional: seja por seu caráter invasivo, seja pelo potencial que tem >> para desrespeitar direitos humanos fundamentais (privacidade, sigilo nas >> comunicações, etc). Mas há duas questões principais envolvidas com o PRISM >> que aumentam ainda mais as controvérsias de todo esse conjunto de ações do >> governo norte-americano: a informação de que empresas de TI do país (* >> Microsoft*, *Google*, *Apple*, etc.) colaboram extensivamente com o >> programa, >> dando acesso aos conteúdos de seus servidores (o que foi prontamente negado >> por elas, mas não foi negado pelo governo norte-americano). E, >> principalmente, a dificuldade – num contexto de interconectividade própria >> da Internet e da natureza multidirecional dos fluxos comunicacionais que se >> estabelecem através dela – de se delimitar alvos bem específicos e de se >> evitar que o monitoramento e o acesso à informação sejam também >> direcionados contra a própria população dos Estados Unidos. >> >> Foi o que aconteceu no caso do PRISM: o programa, apesar de ter sido >> delineado nos termos da legislação e da constituição norte-americana, deu >> acesso a um rol vastíssimo de informações a empresas terceirizadas, >> prestadoras de serviços para o setor de inteligência. É extremamente >> plausível que uma parcela dos funcionários dessas empresas não siga >> estritamente as normas de uso e de confidencialidade. Foi o que fez Edward >> Snowdenao denunciar o programa. >> >> Não há, na ação norte-americana, nenhuma novidade. >> Na primeira década deste século, a agenda de segurança dos Estados Unidos >> ganhou, no setor de TI do país (seja na fabricação de *hardware* e * >> software*, seja na prestação de serviços), um grande aliado. Aliás, se >> os republicanos são conhecidos por suas relações viscerais com o complexo >> militar-industrial, os democratas são conhecidos por sua maior aproximação >> com as gigantes do setor informacional. O 11/09 e o emprego da Internet >> pela Al-Qaeda foi instrumental para que o hiato entre os dois campos fosse >> diminuído: hoje, pode-se falar em um complexo >> militar-informacional-industrial. Atualmente, mesmo diante do enxugamento >> do orçamento militar do país, os projetos voltados ao "ciberespaço" mantêm >> um fluxo constante de investimentos pelo Governo Federal. Prova disso é >> que, em meio aos cortes realizados nos gastos militares pela administração >> Obama no início deste ano, o Comando de Defesa Cibernética do país teve >> sua força de trabalho mais do que quadruplicou >> . >> >> Além disso, produziu-se mais informações entre 2000 e 2010 do que se >> produziu em todo o século passado. A digitalização facilita a produção, o >> armazenamento e a disseminação de informações. Diferentes *gadgets*, >> hoje em dia, funcionam como sensores capazes de captar dados. A >> indústria de TI contemporânea é capaz de realizar a mineração e a análise >> de uma enorme quantidade desses dados e gerar informações e conhecimento de >> todo o tipo . Aliás, é >> basicamente esse o modelo de negócio das principais empresas de TI que são >> partes quase que inalienáveis do nosso dia a dia. A *Google*faz isso com nosso histórico de navegação da >> *Web*. O *Facebook* faz isso com as >> informações que circulam em nosso meio social. O *Reddit*faz isso com o que as pessoas consomem de diferentes fontes jornalísticas. >> A *Apple* , com o que as pessoas fazem de seus >> telefones, *iPods*, etc. Se por um lado todas as “facilidades” da >> Internet revolucionam a maneira como interagimos socialmente(o *Google*que sugere sítios e ofertas, o >> *Facebook* que coloca em contato amigos antigos, etc.), por outro, >> facilitam também a operação de agentes governamentais. Há uma tendência de >> se olhar apenas para a forma com a qual os governos vêm empregando >> tecnologia para se aproximar das suas populações, para entregar melhores >> serviços, abrir espaços de participação e de deliberação *on line*, para >> prestar contas de maneira mais transparente e aberta. E há uma preocupação >> menor (na pesquisa e no ciclo de políticas públicas), mesmo em contextos >> democráticos, com o tipo de ação que os governos tomam a partir da >> exploração do grande acervo informacional que nós próprios, cidadãos, >> criamos em nossa existência digital >> . >> >> Nesse ponto, falhamos nós, os usuários, por termos uma preocupação menor >> com o que empresas privadas das quais nos valemos no uso da Internet podem >> fazer com as informações que, via de regra, são protegidas >> constitucionalmente pelo sigilo nas comunicações e pelo direito à >> privacidade. Como, em grande medida, nossas relações são reguladas por >> contratos de adesão, deixamos de ler (ou, se lemos, ignoramos) os termos de >> serviço que permitem tanto a exploração comercial, quanto o repasse de >> dados para órgãos governamentais (por vezes sem ordem judicial). Apesar de >> sabermos disso, temos a crença de que esses dados não serão utilizados de >> maneira prejudicial. E, no caso dos Estados Unidos, as restrições à captura >> de informações de cidadãos por parte do governo (como uma herança >> decorrente dos abusos do McCartismo) >> são bem mais severas do que as impostas ao setor privado. Por isso, virou >> prática comum do governo norte-americano utilizar as empresas de TI como >> fonte de informação privilegiada. Um bom exemplo dessa aproximação informal >> ocorreu em 2009, n a chamada "Revolução Verde"do Irã. Alimentou-se a crença de que o >> *Twitter* vinha sendo uma ferramenta >> fundamental em suporte aos protestos da população iraniana. Diante da >> notícia de que o microblog seria retirado do ar por algumas horas para >> manutenção, um analista do Departamento de Estado enviou um e-mail à >> empresaexplicando a importância da manutenção do canal aberto para o levante >> popular contra a ditadura de Ahmadinejad. Esse e-mail veio a público. Foi >> basicamente a partir dele – da noção de cooperação entre os Estados Unidos >> e o *Twitter* – que o regime iraniano arroxou o controle sobre a >> Internet do país. >> >> O caso PRISM vai ter, naturalmente, consequências domésticas, mas também >> consequências mais amplas, capazes de repercutir no nível sistêmico das >> relações internacionais. No primeiro caso, é de se esperar que cresça a >> contestação às práticas do governo Obama em relação à Internet. Basta >> lembrar que recentemente o suicídio de Aaron Swartze a perseguição a Julian >> Assange tiveram forte >> repercussão na atitude dos norte-americanos em relação ao governo. O mesmo >> acontece com o caso dos controversos ataques sumários com drones, que matam >> extrajudicialmente indivíduos supostamente ligados a células terroristas. >> Há, no segundo mandato de Obama, uma pressão crescente contra ações tanto >> do Poder Executivo, quanto do Poder Legislativo, no que diz respeito ao controle >> da Internet para a proteção de direitos >> autorais e o combate à pirataria, para o combate ao terrorismo, e, bem >> recentemente, para proteger o país da chamada "guerra cibernética". Grande >> parte da população e da sociedade civil organizada dos Estados Unidos está >> mobilizada no sentido de querer maior participação em decisões que envolvem >> *trade-offs* fundamentais como o controle dos fluxos de informação na >> Internet *versus* a privacidade e o anonimato na Rede; a proteção de >> direitos autorais nas mãos de editoras *versus* o direito de acessar >> livremente artigos científicos publicados com dinheiro público; etc. >> >> De qualquer forma, é preciso que se diga que grande parte da população do >> país apoia medidas como o PRISM, pois as considera como o preço a pagar >> para viver em segurança. Recentemente, o Centro de Pesquisas Pew publicou >> um estudoque mostra que a maioria dos norte-americanos está disposta a trocar >> privacidade por segurança. Essa tendência se mantém constante nos últimos >> anos. Basta lembrar dos recentes atentados durante a maratona de Boston. >> Durante a semana que se seguiu, até a captura do Tsarnaev mais jovem, o que >> pude observar (eu estava em Boston no dia do atentado) foi uma sociedade >> assustada, disposta a abrir mão de direitos fundamentais, a entregar >> voluntariamente o conteúdo registrado em suas máquinas fotográficas, em >> seus telefones celulares, e que aplaudiu efusivamente a capacidade de >> resolução do quebra-cabeças pelas forças de segurança do país, a partir de >> uma combinação massiva de análise de dados relativos a transações >> comerciais, de sinais de telefonia celular que indicaram a movimentação dos >> autores do atentado, de acesso à Internet e de participação em fóruns * >> online*, e de câmeras de monitoramento (que, diga-se de passagem, dão >> inveja às tele-telas do Grande Irmão Orwelliano) espalhadas pela cidade. É >> de se esperar também reações das empresas envolvidas no escândalo, no >> sentido de retomar parte da credibilidade perdida com ele. No contexto da >> *Web*, isso não é muito difícil. No dia seguinte às revelações de >> Snowden, por exemplo, notícias sobre o escândalo, na plataforma de notícias >> *Reddit*, tinham menos visualizações do que notícias que detalhavam o >> novo sistema operacional do *iPhone* que será lançado em breve. É de se >> esperar, também, reações severas do governo norte-americano em relação ao >> rapaz que trouxe a público informações sigilosas, "colocando em risco a >> segurança internacional do país". >> >> Mas há implicações que me parecem bem mais abrangentes para as relações >> internacionais como um todo, e que podem ser decisivas para o futuro da >> Internet. Nos últimos dez anos, a governança da Internet ganhou a agenda >> internacional . Ela diz >> respeito à gestão técnica da Rede, mas também às implicações econômicas, >> políticas, sociais, e culturais mais amplas que a gestão técnica pode ter. >> Apesar do caráter e da relevância global da Internet e da necessidade da >> ação coordenada entre atores estatais, o setor privado, a comunidade de >> técnicos e a sociedade civil como um todo para o funcionamento e para a >> organização e a regulação semiprivada da Rede, há um desequilíbrio enorme >> que é inerente à evolução histórica da Internet: grande parte de sua >> infraestrutura crítica toca o território dos Estados Unidos; a maioria >> esmagadora dos principais serviços relativos à Internet se concentra no >> mundo desenvolvido; a principal língua falada na Internet é o inglês. >> >> Ao mesmo tempo em que a comunidade internacional procura desenvolver >> mecanismos institucionais para dar conta, de maneira democrática, >> participativa e multissetorial , >> do cenário complexo de organização e funcionamento da Internet, os Estados >> Unidos têm uma posição privilegiada no *status quo*. Apesar de o país >> demonstrar disponibilidade em colaborar no processo multissetorial de >> governança da Internet, e de se apresentar como um grande promotor da >> causa da Internet “aberta, estável, segura e interoperável”, >> cada vez mais – especialmente com a revelação de detalhes que orientam as >> políticas públicas domésticas e internacionais do país, como no caso do >> PRISM –,fica claro que o país vem usando essa posição privilegiada em prol >> de seus próprios interesses no plano internacional em detrimento dos >> interesses do resto do mundo. Essa é a tônica da diretiva presidencial >> que vazoujunto com os detalhes sobre o PRISM. De forma declarada, o presidente Obama >> diz: "temos de desenvolver o uso do ciberespaço (da Internet), como uma >> parte integral da promoção de nossos interesses em tempos de paz, de crise, >> e até mesmo de guerra. Para isso estamos dispostos a empregar nossa >> experiência e nossas capacidades concentradas nesse campo." Isso pode ser >> traduzido da seguinte forma: a maior parte dos fluxos informacionais que >> circulam pela Internet ou passam por nossa infraestrutura física, ou estão >> armazenadas nos servidores dos principais gigantes da TI na atualidade, que >> são americanos. Valhamo-nos disso para ganhar vantagem sobre nossos >> adversários nas relações internacionais. >> >> No contexto competitivo e anárquico das relações internacionais, tal >> situação pode levar ao reforço de ações isoladas pelos diferentes países >> com a finalidade de obterem maior controle sobre a Internet, de maneira a >> diminuir a assimetria de poder (político e econômico) que decorre do >> protagonismo norte-americano. É basicamente esse tipo de controvérsia >> política que marcou a Conferência Mundial sobre a Regulação das >> Telecomunicações , >> promovida pela UIT em Dubai no final de 2012. Em última análise, esse tipo >> de competição (em detrimento da cooperação necessária para a organização e >> o funcionamento da Internet) pode levar à fragmentação da Rede como a >> conhecemos hoje. >> >> Muitas pessoas, ao saberem do caso norte-americano, perguntam se é >> possível que o governo brasileiro empregue as mesmas técnicas e desenvolva >> programas semelhantes ao PRISM. Em termos teóricos, é possível que qualquer >> órgão governamental tenha acesso a bases de dados diversas, tanto a partir >> de cooperação com o setor privado, quanto a partir de medidas coercivas >> (dispositivos legais e ordens judiciais, por exemplo), que obriguem os >> donos dessas bases a compartilhá-las ou mesmo ceder o direito de controle >> direto sobre as mesmas. É também possível que o Estado desenvolva a >> capacidade de acessar essas bases de dados de maneira clandestina. >> Entretanto, em termos práticos, é preciso que se leve em consideração os >> quadros político-institucional e jurídico envolvidos, assim como as >> capacidades e os recursos materiais disponíveis para a realização de tais >> atividades. >> >> Apesar de a atividade de inteligência ser ainda precária no Brasil, >> pode-se dizer que o ordenamento jurídico brasileiro é bastante restritivo a >> ações que violem as liberdades fundamentais dos cidadãos; os órgãos de >> Estado, nesse caso, operam preponderantemente segundo os limites da lei >> e no escopo da autorização judicial(que, no país, é condição >> *sine qua non* para qualquer quebra de sigilo de correspondência, >> telefônico, e de comunicações eletrônicas). O Brasil, como aponta o * >> Google* , >> é um dos principais países que ordena, judicialmente, a entrega de >> informações judiciais. Isso leva a crer que há, nesse caso, estrita >> observação dos procedimentos legais para o acesso a bases de dados públicas >> e privadas. >> >> O Marco Civil da Internet– que é de suma importância para determinar os direitos e deveres da >> comunidade envolvida com a Internet no Brasil – trata, em parte, disto: do >> que é tolerável e do que não é em termos de guarda de registros de acesso e >> de comunicação por empresas de TI, e do maior ou menor acesso, pela via >> judicial, a esses dados. Postergar o Marco Civil – como vem sendo feito no >> Congresso em virtude do forte lobby exercido, em grande medida, pelas >> operadoras de telecomunicaçãoque atuam no Brasil – gera insegurança jurídica que pode levar a abusos >> parecidos com o PRISM. >> >> Mesmo que tenha crescido o investimento na capacitação do funcionalismo >> público nos últimos anos, especialmente no que diz respeito à operação no >> ciberespaço (a excelência do Brasil no combate a ilícitos cibernéticos e na >> arrecadação de tributos são casos de destaque internacional), é preciso que >> se reconheça as limitações estruturais que o país enfrenta quando é >> comparado com os Estados Unidos. Afinal, de todo o *backbone* das redes >> de telecomunicação de alcance mundial, apenas uma ínfima parte toca o >> território brasileiro. E, do agregado de empresas que controlam as bases de >> dados correspondentes, uma parcela ainda menor se localiza no país. Isso >> dificulta não apenas a execução de medidas coercivas, mas também o próprio >> alcance do consentimento necessário para a abertura de tais bases de dados. >> >> A importância dessa revelação está em conscientizar as pessoas das >> consequências do uso de tecnologias digitais. O que é colocado nas redes >> sociais, por exemplo, fica armazenado por tempo indeterminado nos >> servidores das empresas que as mantêm. Se há um componente de cautela do >> ponto de vista do usuários que precisa ser fomentado, é também preciso que >> se criem e se revisem as regras a respeito do que se pode fazer com os >> dados que trafegam pela Rede e que são armazenados nos computadores de >> empresas e órgãos governamentais. O Brasil – através da ideia deter sua >> própria Carta de Direitos Fundamentais para a Internet, formulada com >> ampla participação popular – tem >> avançado no processo de adaptação do ordenamento jurídico ao cenário >> sociotécnico complexo do mundo contemporâneo. A paralisia da iniciativa, >> nos termos atuais, é um retrocesso com custo altíssimo para a população, >> ainda que isso tenha bem menos espaço do que deveria na agenda política do >> país. >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> <#13f5394739b08982_13f535d26f81d585_13f4dbf8a92b348a_13f4daf0c1568e4f__ftnref1>(*) >> Diego R. Canabarro é doutorando em Ciência Política da Universidade Federal >> do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS). É assistente de ensino e pesquisa no >> CEGOV/UFRGS. Atualmente realiza estágio doutoral BEX/CAPES n. 8171/12-2 no >> *National Center for Digital Government* ( >> http://www.umass.edu/digitalcenter/) da Universidade de Massachusetts, >> Amherst, nos Estados Unidos. >> >> [1] Este texto é uma reprodução articulada da íntegra das respostas que >> o autor concedeu à entrevista publicada no Jornal Estado de São Paulo no >> dia 12/06/2013, na seção Internacional, p. A11. Versão *online *da >> entrevista encontra disponível em: >> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/impresso,a-quebra-de-sigilo-em-democracias-e-excecao-,1041380,0.htm. >> Acesso em: 13/06/2013. Gostaria de agradecer imensamente ao jornalista >> Lourival Sant’anna pela fidedignidade com que reproduziu minhas respostas. >> E a Thiago Borne e Lídia Lage pela paciência na revisão final deste texto. >> >> -- >> Diego R. Canabarro >> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >> >> -- >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >> Skype: diegocanabarro >> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >> -- >> >> >> >> -- >> Diego R. Canabarro >> http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 >> >> -- >> diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br >> diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu >> MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com >> Skype: diegocanabarro >> Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) >> -- >> >> >> >> -- >> *Carolina Rossini* >> http://carolinarossini.net/ >> + 1 6176979389 >> *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* >> skype: carolrossini >> @carolinarossini >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Jun 18 06:44:41 2013 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Re: FW: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden In-Reply-To: <51BC778C.2070301@gmx.net> References: <13d501ce6758$241d5c50$6c5814f0$@gmail.com> <51BC778C.2070301@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1371552281.99068.YahooMailNeo@web125104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I would like to share some more inputs from Charles Mok: >A couple other pieces I wrote in Eng:  http://charlesmok.blogspot.hk/2013/06/letter-to-hong-kong-2013-06-16.html and a previous contribution: "My first motion was passed; zero tolerance to Internet monitoring" by Charles Mok: http://www.charlesmok.hk/edm-2013-06-14/ Regards Imran Ahmed Shah >________________________________ > From: Norbert Klein >To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; "chapter-support at isoc.org" >Sent: Saturday, 15 June 2013, 19:17 >Subject: Re: [governance] Re: FW: HK June 15 Rally to Support Edward Snowden > > > >On 6/15/2013 8:35 PM, Charles Mok (gmail) wrote: > >Thanks and we had the rally today.  >>This is what I said (well, just about....) >>http://charlesmok.blogspot.hk/2013/06/ed-snowden-dont-go-to-china.html >> >> [snip] > >On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:32 PM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >>Note with congratulations the participation of Charles Mok who I believe, is the representative of the Technical Community in the Hong Kong Legislature (it`s complicated…) and a member of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRP)… And he is the Founding Chairman of the Internet Society Hong Kong. > > > >>>Rally co-organizers: >► inmediahk.net 香港獨立媒體網(http://www.inmediahk.net/) >>>► Hong Wrong (http://hongwrong.com/) >>>► Civil Human Rights Front 民間人權陣線(http://www.civilhrfront.org/) >>>► Hong Kong Christian Institute 香港基督徒學會(http://www.hkci.org.hk/) >>>► Hong Kong First 香港本土(https://www.facebook.com/hongkongfirst) >>>► Midnight Blue 午夜藍(http://www.mnbhk.org/) >>>► Speak For Humanity (http://speakforhumanity.com/) >>>► Land and Justice League 土地正義聯盟(http://landjusticehk.org/) >>>► 1908 Book Store 1908書社(https://www.facebook.com/1908book) >>>► Youth Union 青年聯社(http://youthunion.blogspot.hk/) >>>► Left 21 左翼廿一(http://left21.hk/wp/) >>>► Socialist Action 社會主義行動(http://www.socialism.hk/) >>>► NuTongXueShe 女同學社(http://leslovestudy.com/new/ntxs/) >>> > >____________________________________________________________ >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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 08:40:09 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:40:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] It is born - LAC newsletter! :-)))) Message-ID: Digitalrightslac.net Congratulations to all involved! ! Congratulaciones ! PARABENS pessoal! :-) Carolina Rossini Carolinarossini.net @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 08:45:26 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:45:26 +1200 Subject: [governance] It is born - LAC newsletter! :-)))) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Carolina, It is really excellent to see the Digital Rights [Latin American and Caribbean] site and to see content hosted. Congratulations to all those involved in bringing organisations within your region together to address this space. With every best wish, Sala On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Carolina wrote: > Digitalrightslac.net > > Congratulations to all involved! > > ! Congratulaciones ! > > PARABENS pessoal! :-) > > Carolina Rossini > Carolinarossini.net > @carolinarossini > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 08:48:36 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:48:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] More bloggers arrested in Vietnam References: Message-ID: ... Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: DoanVietTrungAtGmail > Date: June 18, 2013, 3:00:37 AM EDT > To: "tpp-allies" > Subject: [tpp-allies] Human Rights Watch: "Suspend TPP negotiations with Vietnam" > Reply-To: DoanVietTrungAtGmail > > See highlighted text below re. TPP. > > As to the reporter's view that "..confidence vote..to introduce more checks and balances..", well, some western reporters are much more optimistic than Vietnamese themselves. > > Trung Doan > > === text below === > > Vietnam Arrests More Bloggers After Confidence Vote > > http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-254903/ > > By James Hookway > > Vietnam’s latest arrest of a Vietnamese blogger for criticizing the country’s Communist rulers could risk undermining its attempts to provide more accountability through other, more official channels, such as the National Assembly. > > The state-run Thanh Nien newspaper reported Monday that Dinh Nhat Uy was taken into custody in Long An province in southern Vietnam on Saturday for “abusing democratic freedoms” by posting “slanderous and erroneous” reports online, a charge that could lead to up to seven years in prison. > > Mr. Uy, 30 years old, is the third blogger to have been arrested in less than a month; his brother, Dinh Nguyen Kha, was sentenced to eight years in prison in May for spreading propaganda against the state. In all, 46 bloggers or prodemocracy activists have been convicted so far this year, more than in the whole of 2012, as a government nervous about its faltering economy and a growing wave of protests cranks up its efforts to stamp out dissent. > > New York-based Human Rights Watch this month raised the worsening environment for dissent in Vietnam during back-to-back hearings in the U.S. Congress earlier this month. “The trend-lines show a worsening situation in Vietnam,” said John Sifton, Asia advocacy director at the lobby group, and urged Washington to suspend trade negotiations with Vietnam as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade bloc unless substantial improvements in the rights situation are made. > > Vietnam’s foreign ministry last week rejected HRW’s criticisms of its human rights record. > > But faced with the growing spread of the Internet and lively online debates, Vietnamese authorities have tried to open up alternative channels for criticism. The country’s National Assembly last week held its first ever confidence vote in the country’s top leaders as a way to introduce more checks and balances into Vietnam’s closely controlled one-party political system. > > Top officials such as Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung passed, albeit with less than stellar results, with nearly a third of the assembly’s deputies giving him a low-confidence rating. Central bank Gov. Nguyen Van Binh received a low-confidence vote from 42% of the legislature, underscoring the extent to which many Vietnamese are unhappy with the country’s economic management after last year racking up the slowest growth rates since 1999. > > There are no immediate consequences for Mr. Dung, Mr. Binh and the 45 other leaders and officials subjected to what analysts describe as a carefully controlled vote. Leaders failing to win the support of at least a third of the legislature for two consecutive years would be asked to step down or face a no-confidence vote, while those failing to secure the support of half the house in one year would also face a no-confidence vote that could lead to dismissal if they fail to win more than 50% of the vote. > > But, said Carlyle Thayer, emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales, “Mr. Binh’s results, combined with the prime minister’s high vote of low confidence, indicates that the deputies are not satisfied with the handling of the economy.” > > The rash of arrests immediately following the vote suggests that Vietnam’s authorities are eager to draw a line under the recriminations, analysts say. > > As well as Mr. Uy, another prominent blogger, Pham Viet Dao, was arrested at home in Hanoi on Thursday and his website appeared to be blocked. Neither Mr. Uy nor Mr. Dao or their legal representatives could be reached for comment. > > > --- > > You are currently subscribed to tpp-allies as: carolina.rossini at gmail.com. > > To unsubscribe click here: http://cts.citizen.org/u?id=187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737&n=T&l=tpp-allies&o=43491718 > > (It may be necessary to cut and paste the above URL if the line is broken) > > or send a blank email to leave-43491718-187967234.c8292ea66cd32ba7f4e209dba8b10737 at listserver.citizen.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 09:02:21 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 09:02:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] More on surveillance: GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits Message-ID: GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to gather information from allies in London in 2009 Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and James Ball The Guardian, Monday 17 June 2013 Documents uncovered by the NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, reveal surveillance of G20 delegates' emails and BlackBerrys. Photograph: Guardian Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic. The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the exercise is to be repeated this week. The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey. There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to intercept the communications of visiting delegations. This included: • Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers; • Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their email messages and phone calls; • Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was phoning who at the summit; • Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his party; • Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite links to Moscow. The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting delegates, was passed to British ministers. A briefing paper dated 20 January 2009 records advice given by GCHQ officials to their director, Sir Iain Lobban, who was planning to meet the then foreign secretary, David Miliband. The officials summarised Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a form which allows them to make full use of it." Two documents explicitly refer to the intelligence product being passed to "ministers". One of the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian According to the material seen by the Guardian, GCHQ generated this product by attacking both the computers and the telephones of delegates. One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK conference, eg G20". The tactic, which is identified by an internal codeword which the Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an internal glossary as "active collection against an email account that acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server". A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's email before/as they do". The same document also refers to GCHQ, MI6 and others setting up internet cafes which "were able to extract key logging info, providing creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options against them even after conference has finished". This appears to be a reference to acquiring delegates' online login details. Another document summarises a sustained campaign to penetrate South African computers, recording that they gained access to the network of their foreign ministry, "investigated phone lines used by High Commission in London" and "retrieved documents including briefings for South African delegates to G20 and G8 meetings". (South Africa is a member of the G20 group and has observer status at G8 meetings.) Another excerpt from the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian A detailed report records the efforts of the NSA's intercept specialists at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire to target and decode encrypted phone calls from London to Moscow which were made by the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian delegates. Other documents record apparently successful efforts to penetrate the security of BlackBerry smartphones: "New converged events capabilities against BlackBerry provided advance copies of G20 briefings to ministers … Diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO of using smartphones. Exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year." The operation appears to have run for at least six months. One document records that in March 2009 – the month before the heads of state meeting – GCHQ was working on an official requirement to "deliver a live dynamically updating graph of telephony call records for target G20 delegates … and continuing until G20 (2 April)." Another document records that when G20 finance ministers met in London in September, GCHQ again took advantage of the occasion to spy on delegates, identifying the Turkish finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, as a target and listing 15 other junior ministers and officials in his delegation as "possible targets". As with the other G20 spying, there is no suggestion that Simsek and his party were involved in any kind of criminal offence. The document explicitly records a political objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate with the rest of the G20 nations". The September meeting of finance ministers was also the subject of a new technique to provide a live report on any telephone call made by delegates and to display all of the activity on a graphic which was projected on to the 15-sq-metre video wall of GCHQ's operations centre as well as on to the screens of 45 specialist analysts who were monitoring the delegates. "For the first time, analysts had a live picture of who was talking to who that updated constantly and automatically," according to an internal review. A second review implies that the analysts' findings were being relayed rapidly to British representatives in the G20 meetings, a negotiating advantage of which their allies and opposite numbers may not have been aware: "In a live situation such as this, intelligence received may be used to influence events on the ground taking place just minutes or hours later. This means that it is not sufficient to mine call records afterwards – real-time tip-off is essential." In the week after the September meeting, a group of analysts sent an internal message to the GCHQ section which had organised this live monitoring: "Thank you very much for getting the application ready for the G20 finance meeting last weekend … The call records activity pilot was very successful and was well received as a current indicator of delegate activity … "It proved useful to note which nation delegation was active during the moments before, during and after the summit. All in all, a very successful weekend with the delegation telephony plot." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 18 09:21:52 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:51:52 +0530 Subject: [governance] More on surveillance: GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C05EF0.5090009@itforchange.net> That someone could stoop so low!! This is so very cheap... These guys have lost all sense of even basic decency. And then US and UK also want to be global leaders on Internet freedom.... From reading the below, there is no reason that the emails and other forms of communication of civil society groups trying to develop statements or other kinds of advoacy/ political strategies may not be routinely accessed by 'them' - the champions of 'Internet freedom'.... parminder On Tuesday 18 June 2013 06:32 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro wrote: > > GCHQ intercepted foreign politicians' communications at G20 summits > > Exclusive: phones were monitored and fake internet cafes set up to > gather information from allies in London in 2009 > > Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and James Ball > The Guardian, Monday 17 June 2013 > Documents uncovered by the NSA whistleblower, Edward Snowden, reveal > surveillance of G20 delegates' emails and BlackBerrys. Photograph: > Guardian > > Foreign politicians and officials who took part in two G20 summit > meetings in London in 2009 had their computers monitored and their > phone calls intercepted on the instructions of their British > government hosts, according to documents seen by the Guardian. Some > delegates were tricked into using internet cafes which had been set up > by British intelligence agencies to read their email traffic. > > The revelation comes as Britain prepares to host another summit on > Monday – for the G8 nations, all of whom attended the 2009 meetings > which were the object of the systematic spying. It is likely to lead > to some tension among visiting delegates who will want the prime > minister to explain whether they were targets in 2009 and whether the > exercise is to be repeated this week. > > The disclosure raises new questions about the boundaries of > surveillance by GCHQ and its American sister organisation, the > National Security Agency, whose access to phone records and internet > data has been defended as necessary in the fight against terrorism and > serious crime. The G20 spying appears to have been organised for the > more mundane purpose of securing an advantage in meetings. Named > targets include long-standing allies such as South Africa and Turkey. > > There have often been rumours of this kind of espionage at > international conferences, but it is highly unusual for hard evidence > to confirm it and spell out the detail. The evidence is contained in > documents – classified as top secret – which were uncovered by the NSA > whistleblower Edward Snowden and seen by the Guardian. They reveal > that during G20 meetings in April and September 2009 GCHQ used what > one document calls "ground-breaking intelligence capabilities" to > intercept the communications of visiting delegations. > > This included: > > •  Setting up internet cafes where they used an email interception > programme and key-logging software to spy on delegates' use of computers; > > • Penetrating the security on delegates' BlackBerrys to monitor their > email messages and phone calls; > > • Supplying 45 analysts with a live round-the-clock summary of who was > phoning who at the summit; > > • Targeting the Turkish finance minister and possibly 15 others in his > party; > > •  Receiving reports from an NSA attempt to eavesdrop on the Russian > leader, Dmitry Medvedev, as his phone calls passed through satellite > links to Moscow. > > The documents suggest that the operation was sanctioned in principle > at a senior level in the government of the then prime minister, Gordon > Brown, and that intelligence, including briefings for visiting > delegates, was passed to British ministers. > > A briefing paper dated 20 January 2009 records advice given by GCHQ > officials to their director, Sir Iain Lobban, who was planning to meet > the then foreign secretary, David Miliband. The officials summarised > Brown's aims for the meeting of G20 heads of state due to begin on 2 > April, which was attempting to deal with the economic aftermath of the > 2008 banking crisis. The briefing paper added: "The GCHQ intent is to > ensure that intelligence relevant to HMG's desired outcomes for its > presidency of the G20 reaches customers at the right time and in a > form which allows them to make full use of it." Two documents > explicitly refer to the intelligence product being passed to "ministers". > > One of the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian > > According to the material seen by the Guardian, GCHQ generated this > product by attacking both the computers and the telephones of delegates. > > One document refers to a tactic which was "used a lot in recent UK > conference, eg G20". The tactic, which is identified by an internal > codeword which the Guardian is not revealing, is defined in an > internal glossary as "active collection against an email account that > acquires mail messages without removing them from the remote server". > A PowerPoint slide explains that this means "reading people's email > before/as they do". > > The same document also refers to GCHQ, MI6 and others setting up > internet cafes which "were able to extract key logging info, providing > creds for delegates, meaning we have sustained intelligence options > against them even after conference has finished". This appears to be a > reference to acquiring delegates' online login details. > > Another document summarises a sustained campaign to penetrate South > African computers, recording that they gained access to the network of > their foreign ministry, "investigated phone lines used by High > Commission in London" and "retrieved documents including briefings for > South African delegates to G20 and G8 meetings". (South Africa is a > member of the G20 group and has observer status at G8 meetings.) > > Another excerpt from the GCHQ documents. Photograph: Guardian > > A detailed report records the efforts of the NSA's intercept > specialists at Menwith Hill in North Yorkshire to target and decode > encrypted phone calls from London to Moscow which were made by the > Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, and other Russian delegates. > > Other documents record apparently successful efforts to penetrate the > security of BlackBerry smartphones: "New converged events capabilities > against BlackBerry provided advance copies of G20 briefings to > ministers … Diplomatic targets from all nations have an MO of using > smartphones. Exploited this use at the G20 meetings last year." > > The operation appears to have run for at least six months. One > document records that in March 2009 – the month before the heads of > state meeting – GCHQ was working on an official requirement to > "deliver a live dynamically updating graph of telephony call records > for target G20 delegates … and continuing until G20 (2 April)." > > Another document records that when G20 finance ministers met in London > in September, GCHQ again took advantage of the occasion to spy on > delegates, identifying the Turkish finance minister, Mehmet Simsek, as > a target and listing 15 other junior ministers and officials in his > delegation as "possible targets". As with the other G20 spying, there > is no suggestion that Simsek and his party were involved in any kind > of criminal offence. The document explicitly records a political > objective – "to establish Turkey's position on agreements from the > April London summit" and their "willingness (or not) to co-operate > with the rest of the G20 nations". > > The September meeting of finance ministers was also the subject of a > new technique to provide a live report on any telephone call made by > delegates and to display all of the activity on a graphic which was > projected on to the 15-sq-metre video wall of GCHQ's operations centre > as well as on to the screens of 45 specialist analysts who were > monitoring the delegates. > > "For the first time, analysts had a live picture of who was talking to > who that updated constantly and automatically," according to an > internal review. > > A second review implies that the analysts' findings were being relayed > rapidly to British representatives in the G20 meetings, a negotiating > advantage of which their allies and opposite numbers may not have been > aware: "In a live situation such as this, intelligence received may be > used to influence events on the ground taking place just minutes or > hours later. This means that it is not sufficient to mine call records > afterwards – real-time tip-off is essential." > > In the week after the September meeting, a group of analysts sent an > internal message to the GCHQ section which had organised this live > monitoring: "Thank you very much for getting the application ready for > the G20 finance meeting last weekend … The call records activity pilot > was very successful and was well received as a current indicator of > delegate activity … > > "It proved useful to note which nation delegation was active during > the moments before, during and after the summit. All in all, a very > successful weekend with the delegation telephony plot." > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 18 10:21:26 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:21:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fwd=3A_Invitation=3A_=22Digital_Right?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?s=3A_Latin_Am=E9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=22_newsletter?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, This is to introduce you to the newsletter "Digital Rights: Latin America & Caribbean" The first issue recently published is available here in 3 languages: Spanish , English and Portuguese . Also, you can freely subscribe: Spanish , English and Portuguese . More info bellow. Sorry for any cross-posting All the best, Joana -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varon ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Francisco Vera Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM Subject: Invitation: "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter Hi Everybody, Within a group of organizations from South America (ONG Derechos Digitales from Chile, ADC from Argentina, Fundación Karisma from Colombia and FGV-CTS from Brazil) we've created the "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter to share information and discuss about the key debates surrounding Internet that are starting to spawn in the region. On a monthly basis, we will put at your disposal regional news, analysis on key subjects, recommended research material and data about conferences and events. We will make our best to include every single voice into this discussion. In Latin America and The Caribbean these issues are starting to find their way into the public agenda. We do not know how the Internet will be in the future, but we do know how we want it to be. We believe the way the digital world is shaped will define the nature of our democracies. Our newsletter will be distributed also in Spanish, English and Portuguese. You can access its first edition (#0), published last week. Also there is the website where you can find all the content in all languages freely available with a CC license. The newsletter is in three different languages and you can freely subscribe: Spanish , English and Portuguese . You can read the first issue, recently published: Spanish , English and Portuguese . Finally, you also are welcomed to visit our web site where the articles are hosted. Best, Francisco Vera -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 10:39:48 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:39:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier Message-ID: <008e01ce6c31$b59cc2f0$20d648d0$@gmail.com> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm l?hpt=hp_c3 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From cveraq at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 11:01:57 2013 From: cveraq at gmail.com (Carlos Vera Quintana) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:01:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?GB2312?B?RndkOiBJbnZpdGF0aW9uOiAiRGlnaXRhbCBS?= =?GB2312?B?aWdodHM6IExhdGluIEFtqKZyaWNhICYgVGhlIENhcmliYmVhbiIgbmV3c2xl?= =?GB2312?B?dHRlcg==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Excelente!! Carlos Vera Quintana 0988141143 El 18/06/2013, a las 9:21, Joana Varon escribió: > Dear all, > > This is to introduce you to the newsletter "Digital Rights: Latin America & Caribbean" > > The first issue recently published is available here in 3 languages: Spanish, English and Portuguese. > > Also, you can freely subscribe: Spanish, English and Portuguese. > > More info bellow. Sorry for any cross-posting > > All the best, > > Joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Francisco Vera > Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM > Subject: Invitation: "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter > > > Hi Everybody, > > Within a group of organizations from South America (ONG Derechos Digitales from Chile, ADC from Argentina, Fundación Karisma from Colombia and FGV-CTS from Brazil) we've created the "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" newsletter to share information and discuss about the key debates surrounding Internet that are starting to spawn in the region. > > On a monthly basis, we will put at your disposal regional news, analysis on key subjects, recommended research material and data about conferences and events. We will make our best to include every single voice into this discussion. > > In Latin America and The Caribbean these issues are starting to find their way into the public agenda. We do not know how the Internet will be in the future, but we do know how we want it to be. We believe the way the digital world is shaped will define the nature of our democracies. > > Our newsletter will be distributed also in Spanish, English and Portuguese. You can access its first edition (#0), published last week. Also there is the website where you can find all the content in all languages freely available with a CC license. > > The newsletter is in three different languages and you can freely subscribe: Spanish, English and Portuguese. > > You can read the first issue, recently published: Spanish, English and Portuguese. > > Finally, you also are welcomed to visit our web site where the articles are hosted. > > Best, > Francisco Vera > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 11:18:28 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:18:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier In-Reply-To: <008e01ce6c31$b59cc2f0$20d648d0$@gmail.com> References: <008e01ce6c31$b59cc2f0$20d648d0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Michael, the hyperlink in your message was broken (for it missed part of the URL). "We're sorry! This page is not available. Please visit the CNN homepage or use the search box below." Hereis the correct address. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 10:39 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm > l?hpt=hp_c3 > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 11:20:57 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:20:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL Message-ID: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> No with tiny URL http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm l?hpt=hp_c3 http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h M -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg Tue Jun 18 11:15:57 2013 From: iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg (iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:15:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Today a DNS filtration was activated for a list of gambling related websites in Bulgaria. This is because of a new law that requires gambling websites to have license in order to be active. All ISPs have complied with the law, and now the domains from the list resolve to 127.0.0.1 Most of the websites are not even hosted in Bulgaria. An example site is http://www.bet365.com If Google DNS and other providers are used, the websites are accessible. Here is the court order ,sent to all ISPs: http://www.dkh.minfin.bg/bg/pubs/2/548 (in Bulgarian, but you see the list there) Kind regards, Iliya Bazlyankov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jaryn56 at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 11:47:46 2013 From: jaryn56 at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRsOpbGl4IEFyaWFzIFluY2hl?=) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 10:47:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_Invitation=3A_=22Digital_Rights?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_Latin_Am=C3=A9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=22_newsletter?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ya me inscribí... *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* 2013/6/18 Carlos Vera Quintana > Excelente!! > > Carlos Vera Quintana > 0988141143 > > El 18/06/2013, a las 9:21, Joana Varon escribió: > > Dear all, > > This is to introduce you to the newsletter "Digital Rights: Latin America > & Caribbean" > > The first issue recently published is available here in 3 languages: > Spanish > , English > > and Portuguese > . > > Also, you can freely subscribe: Spanish > , English > and Portuguese > . > > More info bellow. Sorry for any cross-posting > > All the best, > > Joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Francisco Vera > Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM > Subject: Invitation: "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" > newsletter > > > Hi Everybody, > > Within a group of organizations from South America (ONG Derechos Digitales > from Chile, ADC from Argentina, Fundación Karisma from Colombia and > FGV-CTS from Brazil) we've created the "Digital Rights: Latin América & > The Caribbean" newsletter to share information and discuss about the key > debates surrounding Internet that are starting to spawn in the region. > > On a monthly basis, we will put at your disposal regional news, analysis on > key subjects, recommended research material and data about conferences > and events. We will make our best to include every single voice into this > discussion. > > In Latin America and The Caribbean these issues are starting to find their > way into the public agenda. We do not know how the Internet will be in > the future, but we do know how we want it to be. We believe the way the > digital world is shaped will define the nature of our democracies. > > Our newsletter will be distributed also in Spanish, English and Portuguese. > You can access its first edition (#0), published last week. Also there is > the website where you can find all the content in all languages freely > available with a CC license. > > The newsletter is in three different languages and you can freely > subscribe: Spanish > , English > and Portuguese > . > > You can read the first issue, recently published: Spanish > , English > > and Portuguese > . > > Finally, you also are welcomed to visit our web site where > the articles are hosted. > > Best, > Francisco Vera > > > > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 14:34:46 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:34:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] OVERNIGHT TECH: Wheeler to come before Senate Commerce panel Message-ID: "Overall Wheeler's statement to the committee is largely vague and notably silent on his positions about hot-button policy issues, such as net neutrality, spectrum auctions and mergers. " Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/306071-overnight-tech-wheeler-heads-before-senate-commerce-panel#ixzz2Wau8OZqV Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jfcallo at ciencitec.com Tue Jun 18 14:38:37 2013 From: jfcallo at ciencitec.com (jfcallo at ciencitec.com) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:38:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_Invitation=3A_=22Digital_Rights?= =?UTF-8?Q?=3A_Latin_Am=C3=A9rica_=26_The_Caribbean=22_newsletter?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130618143837.16051h0okflsj6st@www.ciencitec.com> Joana. Muchas gracias ya me inscribi. Soy periodista y estoy a sus ordenes aqui en Lima, Peru, para lo que desee, sobre todo en cuanto a informacion, clara y precisa, lejos de manejos subjetivistas o de intereses particulares. Gracias Atentamente José F. Callo Romero CEO ciencitec.com Joana Varon escribió: > Dear all, > > This is to introduce you to the newsletter "Digital Rights: Latin America & > Caribbean" > > The first issue recently published is available here in 3 languages: > Spanish > , English > > and > Portuguese > . > > Also, you can freely subscribe: > Spanish > , > English > and > Portuguese > . > > More info bellow. Sorry for any cross-posting > > All the best, > > Joana > > -- > > Joana Varon Ferraz > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) > @joana_varon > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Francisco Vera > Date: Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM > Subject: Invitation: "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" > newsletter > > > Hi Everybody, > > Within a group of organizations from South America (ONG Derechos Digitales > from Chile, ADC from Argentina, Fundación Karisma from Colombia and > FGV-CTS from > Brazil) we've created the "Digital Rights: Latin América & The Caribbean" > newsletter to share information and discuss about the key debates surrounding > Internet that are starting to spawn in the region. > > On a monthly basis, we will put at your disposal regional news, analysis on > key subjects, recommended research material and data about conferences and > events. We will make our best to include every single voice into this > discussion. > > In Latin America and The Caribbean these issues are starting to find their > way into the public agenda. We do not know how the Internet will be in the > future, but we do know how we want it to be. We believe the way the digital > world is shaped will define the nature of our democracies. > > Our newsletter will be distributed also in Spanish, English and Portuguese. > You can access its first edition (#0), published last week. Also there is > the website where you can find all the content in all languages freely > available with a CC license. > > The newsletter is in three different languages and you can freely > subscribe: > Spanish > , > English > and > Portuguese > . > > You can read the first issue, recently published: > Spanish > , English > > and > Portuguese > . > > Finally, you also are welcomed to visit our web > site where > the articles are hosted. > > Best, > Francisco Vera > > > > -- > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 14:39:13 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:39:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Yahoo says it received 12,000-13,000 data requests from US law enforcement during a six-month period. Message-ID: original Yahoo post - http://yahoo.tumblr.com/post/53243441454/our-commitment-to-our-users-privacy Yahoo releases figures on thousands of government requests for user data By Jennifer Martinez - 06/18/13 09:37 AM ET Yahoo is the latest tech company to release data on the number of government requests for user data it receives in the wake of the revelations over the National Security Agency's (NSA) Internet surveillance program. The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Internet company received between 12,000 and 13,000 requests from U.S. law enforcement for user data in the last six months, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer and General Counsel Ron Bell said Monday in a *post* on the company's Tumblr account. The most common requests sent to Yahoo "concerned fraud, homicides, kidnappings and other criminal investigations." Unlike its Silicon Valley peers Google and Twitter, Yahoo has not previously published a report that discloses the number of government requests it receives for user data. But the two executives said that would change this summer, when it will issue its first global law enforcement transparency report that provides data on government requests for user information from the first half of the year. "Democracy demands accountability," Mayer and Bell write. Yahoo will update the transparency report with new figures twice a year. Facebook, Microsoft and Apple have* released* similar figures in recent days in an attempt to maintain user trust in their handling and protection of people's personal data following revelations about the NSA's PRISM program. Reports earlier this month said tech companies had given the government access to the contents of users' emails, video chats and other information as a part of this surveillance program. Tech companies have vehemently denied the reports and said they have not allowed the government to tap into their servers and access user data. In response, tech giants have released information about the number of government requests they receive for user data in an effort to boost transparency about the types of requests they receive and how they handle them. The tech giants have also voiced their commitment to protection their users' privacy and vowed to maintain their trust. "We will continually evaluate whether further actions can be taken to protect the privacy of users and our ability to defend it," Mayer and Bell write. "We appreciate — and do not take for granted — the trust you place in us." Google, in particular, has stepped forward and argued that publishing the total number of government requests a company receives for user data isn't enough. Google contends that companies should break out the number of criminal and FISA court requests they receive. In its Transparency Report, the search giant breaks down its figures, providing numbers for national security letters separately from criminal ones. It also breaks down requests it receives via search warrant and subpoena. The government has yet to give tech companies permission to publish figures for FISA court requests separately from its aggregate data. Twitter, which has not been linked to PRISM, has voiced support for Google's stance. In its Tumblr post, Yahoo took the same position and pressed the government to give companies permission to disclose such figures. "Like all companies, Yahoo! cannot lawfully break out FISA request numbers at this time because those numbers are classified; however, we strongly urge the federal government to reconsider its stance on this issue," Mayer and Bell write. Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/306153-yahoo-joins-tech-companies-in-releasing-figures-on-government-requests-for-user-data#ixzz2Waurq100 Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 18 17:29:56 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:29:56 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future than may be apparent at this stage. The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL No with tiny URL http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm l?hpt=hp_c3 http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h M ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 17:49:41 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:49:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future > than may be apparent at this stage. > > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is > being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for global > interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of > convenience to protect US dominant interests. I don't see how a unilateral action by states implicates the MSM in any way. States will do what they will do. However, we don't have to give them the power to make ALL Internet policies when we can do a number of them using MSism. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Jun 18 17:50:02 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:50:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <02bb01ce6c6d$d10d7c00$73287400$@gmail.com> I actually think it may be even more serious than that... How long are the various multilateral agreements opening up national markets to international free trade and contracting going to survive once it is realized that the surveillance mechanisms which have been put into place mean that there is at least the potential for US interests to have access to the entire range of commercial (not to speak of IP) secrets as for example access to bid documents, assessment criteria, cost analyses etc.etc. in competitive bidding which are the bedrock of international trade? One of the documents released pointed to the cosy and mutually supportive relationships of the NSA with thousands of US private sector companies and to the 4 million US citizens with Top Secret clearance for information access. Could one of those companies (or some of those individuals) be the company (or an employee of the company) that your non-US company is bidding against under one of these "free" trade agreements and if so, what is the point of bidding if the result is already fixed? M -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:30 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future than may be apparent at this stage. The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:20 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL No with tiny URL http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm l?hpt=hp_c3 http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h M ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Jun 18 17:55:36 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 07:55:36 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <746D3E685EA2453C8726C5B453AA22A5@Toshiba> McTim, it's not quite unilateral - its the most vocal champion of multistakeholderism acting in consort with the most powerful private sector interests dominating Internet usage. -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:49 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future > than may be apparent at this stage. > > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is > being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for > global > interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of > convenience to protect US dominant interests. I don't see how a unilateral action by states implicates the MSM in any way. States will do what they will do. However, we don't have to give them the power to make ALL Internet policies when we can do a number of them using MSism. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 19 01:37:36 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:37:36 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <4F2E7A6F-F86C-4A26-A2C4-94E5668456FA@uzh.ch> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <746D3E685EA2453C8726C5B453AA22A5@Toshiba> <4F2E7A6F-F86C-4A26-A2C4-94E5668456FA@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <69B12D7980A0407FA9C8A91449F5AF47@Toshiba> True, but most of the other countries don't have the degree of access to Google, Facebook, Yahoo et al metadata on such a wide scale. -----Original Message----- From: William Drake Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 3:04 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: ; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL And the intelligence and law enforcement agencies of many other countries. On Jun 18, 2013, at 23:55, "Ian Peter" wrote: > McTim, it's not quite unilateral - its the most vocal champion of > multistakeholderism acting in consort with the most powerful private > sector interests dominating Internet usage. > > > > -----Original Message----- From: McTim > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 7:49 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce > Schneier + tinyURL > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future >> than may be apparent at this stage. >> >> The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is >> being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for >> global >> interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of >> convenience to protect US dominant interests. > > > I don't see how a unilateral action by states implicates the MSM in any > way. > > States will do what they will do. However, we don't have to give them > the power to make ALL Internet policies when we can do a number of > them using MSism. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 19 01:47:05 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:47:05 +1200 Subject: [governance] Update on the Pacific ICT Regulatory Meeting Message-ID: Dear All, The Pacific comprises of 11 countries and territories, 16 of which are independent nation states and the remaining Territories of the US, France, Ecuador etc. The Pacific ICT Regulators through the Pacific ICT Regulatory Resource Center had its 2 day AGM and some very interesting development topics were on the Agenda. It was also very useful to sit in and observe the dynamics as well as intervene from time to time. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Wed Jun 19 01:49:46 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:49:46 +1200 Subject: [governance] Re: Update on the Pacific ICT Regulatory Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Correction - meant to say 22 countries (ended up typing 11) On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear All, > > The Pacific comprises of 11 countries and territories, 16 of which are > independent nation states and the remaining Territories of the US, France, > Ecuador etc. The Pacific ICT Regulators through the Pacific ICT Regulatory > Resource Center had its 2 day AGM and some very interesting development > topics were on the Agenda. It was also very useful to sit in and observe > the dynamics as well as intervene from time to time. > > Kind Regards, > > -- > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > P.O. Box 17862 > Suva > Fiji > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > Tel: +679 3544828 > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Tel: +679 3544828 Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 Blog: salanieta.blogspot.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 19 02:01:41 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:31:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <02bb01ce6c6d$d10d7c00$73287400$@gmail.com> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <02bb01ce6c6d$d10d7c00$73287400$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51C14945.1070902@itforchange.net> I read something yesterday which is perhaps even more dangerous..... in fact, rather chilling. A report said how through such back door controls 'evidence could be created/ planted' against anyone for anything, and thus use the coercive powers to the state to one's (digital controller) own ends.... Much of investigation world wide today rely on electronic documents, traces etc.... The whole basis of the digital world system is shaken... parminder On Wednesday 19 June 2013 03:20 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > I actually think it may be even more serious than that... > > How long are the various multilateral agreements opening up national markets > to international free trade and contracting going to survive once it is > realized that the surveillance mechanisms which have been put into place > mean that there is at least the potential for US interests to have access to > the entire range of commercial (not to speak of IP) secrets as for example > access to bid documents, assessment criteria, cost analyses etc.etc. in > competitive bidding which are the bedrock of international trade? > > One of the documents released pointed to the cosy and mutually supportive > relationships of the NSA with thousands of US private sector companies and > to the 4 million US citizens with Top Secret clearance for information > access. Could one of those companies (or some of those individuals) be the > company (or an employee of the company) that your non-US company is bidding > against under one of these "free" trade agreements and if so, what is the > point of bidding if the result is already fixed? > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Peter [mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 5:30 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein > Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce > Schneier + tinyURL > > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's future > than may be apparent at this stage. > > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism is > being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for global > interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a philosophy of > convenience to protect US dominant interests. > > I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA oversight > question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on this question to > lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. > > This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I don't > see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm sure global > connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of facility we used to > enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: michael gurstein > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:20 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce > Schneier + tinyURL > > No with tiny URL > > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm > l?hpt=hp_c3 > > http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h > > M > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Wed Jun 19 03:26:12 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:26:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> On 19.06.13 00:29, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's > future than may be apparent at this stage. The future of the Internet does not depend on any kind of agreements, or oversight. This is how the Internet actually came to dominate -- bypassing the requirements for multilateral agreements and oversight/regulation. Internet functions on peer trust only. > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism > is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than > for global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a > philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. This is only true, if you believed the US Government has ever seriously advocated multistakeholderism. It has done so only as a tool to deter other Governments from implementing 'direct control'. It is the human society as such, that has created and evolved multistakeholderism -- because Internet was employing new technology that governments were not ready to control. Whether the society will give this up remains to be seen. > I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA > oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on > this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. These things existed before Internet, they exist today on Internet in many, many places. Remember AOL and CompuServe? It seems many forget what IANA actually is: it is a repository/registry for various Internet related parameters. IANA has no power over Internet as such. What is it you think IANA can do to damage my business? Remove the port number or protocol assignment for my established application from it's database? How is this going to impact my business? It would be either hardcoded in code, or users will put it in local configuration. At the same time, by doing this, IANA will only create more havoc and reduce anyone's trust towards them. Hardly something IANA will ever do. ICANN is an entirely different topic. The Internet happily existed without ICANN for quite some time. It can continue functioning without ICANN. ICANN too, does not have any real power over Internet. What can ICANN do? Remove .cn or .ru for no justification? That will last only few hours, at most. > This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I > don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm > sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of > facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. The Internet was designed to withstand nuclear war, loss of most components, total disaster. We are, thankfully, still not there! Spying, hacking and abuse have always existed on Internet. If you can shut a power plant remotely, without sending your troops over there, why would you not do it? Especially, if you can attribute the action to some other party, eg. China. I see far greater problem in the absurd implementation of Internet technologies by governments and "critical infrastructure" (usually state run) businesses, that are the direct result of employing wannabe experts and greedy public (i.e. shared irresponsibility) corporations. Close your infrastructure holes and the US spies will have rather hard time penetrating -- at the point the costs will exceed the potential benefits. In my book, SPAM is a bigger problem than US spies hacking something, because SPAM severely reduces trust in e-mail communication, which impacts everyday life much more. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From joly at punkcast.com Wed Jun 19 09:00:39 2013 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:00:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] WEBCAST THURS: CITI The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai Message-ID: I hope I don't have to explain what the Dubai in this event's title refers to but, just in case, you can read up here. As always CITI is able to bring in the most prestigious and prominent of speakers. They are known for their "State of Telecom" events, this could very well have been dubbed "State of Internet". Don't miss. ** joly posted: "On Thursday June 20 2013 the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) will host The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet? at Columbus Business School NYC. Keynote speakers include Larry Strickling and Dr." [image: CITI] On Thursday June 20 2013 the Columbia Institute for Tele-Information(CITI) will host The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet? at Columbus Business School NYC. Keynote speakers include Larry Strickling and Dr. Hamadoun Tourè. The event will be webcast live via the Internet Society Chapters Livestream Channel. No registration needed for the webcast. No live captions. *What*: The Future Of Internet Governance After Dubai: Are We Heading To A Federated Internet? *Where*: Uris Hall, Columbia Business School NYC *When*: Thursday June 20 2013 9am-5pm EDT | 1300-2100UTC *Program*: http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/citi/thefutureoftheinternet *Register*: http://citifederatedinternet.eventbrite.com *Webcast*: http://livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Hashtag*: #citiafterdubai| #governance Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/5715 - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jun 19 10:37:17 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:37:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Talk with House of Representative Alessandro Molon, Rapporteur of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights Message-ID: Dear friends, Representative Alessandro Molon is talking to the community of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. I'm covering it via Twitter. You may follow it by following me (@diegorcanabarro) or following the hashtags #MarcoCivil and #berkman. Thank you. -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 19 11:48:22 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 12:48:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Carta Internacional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C1D2C6.7070204@cafonso.ca> More precisely, the IACHR: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Organization of American States 1889 F St NW Washington, D.C., 20006 United States of America Telephone: 202 370 9000 Fax: 202 458 3992 / 202 458 3650 / 202 458 6215 E-mail: cidhdenuncias at oas.org fraternal regards --c.a. On 06/17/2013 12:43 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: > I also suggest OAS. > > C > > 2013/6/17 José Félix Arias Ynche > >> No solamente se le debe de enviar la misiva al Congreso Norteamericano, >> sino también a los siguientes organismos: >> >> >> -ONU >> >> -Comisión Europea de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales >> >> >> >> Para que se pronuncien ante sus Estados miembros y otros vinculados a >> deliberar a un amplio, y profundo debate transparente sobre: >> >> >> La interferencia con los derechos humanos de los ciudadanos de cualquier >> país, que de acuerdo con la Carta de la ONU (arts. 55 y 56) obliga a todos >> sus miembros a promover “El respeto Universal a los Derechos Humanos y a >> las Libertades Fundamentales de todos. >> >> >> Siendo inaceptable la actual situación de la vigilancia de las >> telecomunicaciones y comunicaciones digitales que los ciudadanos de >> cualquier país afrontan en estos momentos, las cuales amenazan gravemente >> sus derechos a la privacidad de comunicar sus pensamientos privados. >> >> >> Ello no solamente viola y pone en peligro los derechos fundamentales a la >> libertad de pensamiento, de opinión, de expresión y asociación que es >> centro de toda práctica democrática, también viola los valores de la >> dignidad humana, libertad, democracia, igualdad, Estado de Derecho y >> respeto de los derechos humanos, incluidos los derechos de las personas >> pertenecientes a minorías. >> >> >> >> *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* >> * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2013/6/17 Norbert Bollow >> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >>>>> I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above >>>>> the law. >>>> >>>> When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one >>>> can be above the law. >>> >>> I think that international human rights law can reasonably be accepted >>> as being a legitimate form of global law. >>> >>> IMO the main problem there is the weakness of the enforcement >>> mechanisms. >>> >>> WTO rules and international copyright law have a much lower degree of >>> legitimacy (especially given how much the world has changed since >>> those rules were adopted, in ways that at least draw into question the >>> continued validity of the assumptions on which those rule-making >>> processes were based) but much stronger enforcement. >>> >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >>> -- >>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> 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: >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 19 12:37:16 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:37:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51C1DE3C.2010908@cafonso.ca> Besides endorsing Ian's worries, I should say that there is already activity to propose alternatives to circumvent walled gardens or cybercensors (far more structural ones than just anonymizers etc). The Internet will quite probably not be the same as we idealized in the recent past, and networking alternatives will emerge. Inevitably, some form of international governance will also emerge (to the desperation of the status-quoers). Hopefully truly multistaskeholder, but as Ian notes we can no longer trust some big defenders of "multistakeholderism"... I am just reading a paper issued now by Brazilian scholars on this -- challenging, extremely interesting. In Portuguese... []s fraternos --c.a. On 06/18/2013 06:29 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's > future than may be apparent at this stage. > > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism > is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for > global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a > philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. > > I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA > oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on > this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. > > This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I > don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm > sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of > facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. > > Ian Peter > > -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:20 AM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce > Schneier + tinyURL > > No with tiny URL > > http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm > > l?hpt=hp_c3 > > http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h > > M > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Jun 19 12:50:31 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:50:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <51C1DE3C.2010908@cafonso.ca> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C1DE3C.2010908@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <51C1E157.3020005@cafonso.ca> Ooops, got a PDF version in English, attached. frt rgds --c.a. On 06/19/2013 01:37 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Besides endorsing Ian's worries, I should say that there is already > activity to propose alternatives to circumvent walled gardens or > cybercensors (far more structural ones than just anonymizers etc). The > Internet will quite probably not be the same as we idealized in the > recent past, and networking alternatives will emerge. Inevitably, some > form of international governance will also emerge (to the desperation of > the status-quoers). Hopefully truly multistaskeholder, but as Ian notes > we can no longer trust some big defenders of "multistakeholderism"... > > I am just reading a paper issued now by Brazilian scholars on this -- > challenging, extremely interesting. In Portuguese... > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > On 06/18/2013 06:29 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's >> future than may be apparent at this stage. >> >> The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism >> is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than for >> global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a >> philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. >> >> I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA >> oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on >> this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. >> >> This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I >> don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm >> sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of >> facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. >> >> Ian Peter >> >> -----Original Message----- From: michael gurstein >> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 1:20 AM >> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce >> Schneier + tinyURL >> >> No with tiny URL >> >> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/18/opinion/schneier-cyberwar-policy/index.htm >> >> >> l?hpt=hp_c3 >> >> http://tinyurl.com/n35rd8h >> >> M >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: VERSAO_PRA_DISSEMINACAO__EM_BETA.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 915430 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marie.georges at noos.fr Wed Jun 19 13:22:48 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:22:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Carta Internacional In-Reply-To: <51C1D2C6.7070204@cafonso.ca> References: <51C1D2C6.7070204@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Dear All of you, I really appreciated the letter...I signed it of course as it is the only initiative from civil society on the basis of a universal problem of protection and not only a problem for american citizens' protection (that I love, any how) But I think that besides OAS and OAS's HR commission please, the letter should be also sent to the Council of Europe..The only international organization with a data protection convention (by the way open to third country) and its European Court of Human rights It's address is : Council of Europe General Directorate I - Human Rights and Rule of Law 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France Thank you again for that initiative Marie GEORGES Le 19 juin 2013 à 17:48, Carlos A. Afonso a écrit : > More precisely, the IACHR: > > Inter-American Commission on Human Rights > Organization of American States > 1889 F St NW > Washington, D.C., 20006 > United States of America > > Telephone: 202 370 9000 > Fax: 202 458 3992 / 202 458 3650 / 202 458 6215 > E-mail: cidhdenuncias at oas.org > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > On 06/17/2013 12:43 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: >> I also suggest OAS. >> >> C >> >> 2013/6/17 José Félix Arias Ynche >> >>> No solamente se le debe de enviar la misiva al Congreso Norteamericano, >>> sino también a los siguientes organismos: >>> >>> >>> -ONU >>> >>> -Comisión Europea de Justicia y Derechos Fundamentales >>> >>> >>> >>> Para que se pronuncien ante sus Estados miembros y otros vinculados a >>> deliberar a un amplio, y profundo debate transparente sobre: >>> >>> >>> La interferencia con los derechos humanos de los ciudadanos de cualquier >>> país, que de acuerdo con la Carta de la ONU (arts. 55 y 56) obliga a todos >>> sus miembros a promover “El respeto Universal a los Derechos Humanos y a >>> las Libertades Fundamentales de todos. >>> >>> >>> Siendo inaceptable la actual situación de la vigilancia de las >>> telecomunicaciones y comunicaciones digitales que los ciudadanos de >>> cualquier país afrontan en estos momentos, las cuales amenazan gravemente >>> sus derechos a la privacidad de comunicar sus pensamientos privados. >>> >>> >>> Ello no solamente viola y pone en peligro los derechos fundamentales a la >>> libertad de pensamiento, de opinión, de expresión y asociación que es >>> centro de toda práctica democrática, también viola los valores de la >>> dignidad humana, libertad, democracia, igualdad, Estado de Derecho y >>> respeto de los derechos humanos, incluidos los derechos de las personas >>> pertenecientes a minorías. >>> >>> >>> >>> *Cordialmente: José Félix Arias Ynche* >>> * Investigador Social Para El Desarrollo* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/6/17 Norbert Bollow >>> >>>> Parminder wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Saturday 15 June 2013 02:49 PM, Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: >>>>>> I support this statement. After all, no one can pretend to be above >>>>>> the law. >>>>> >>>>> When there is no global law then it is more difficult to say no one >>>>> can be above the law. >>>> >>>> I think that international human rights law can reasonably be accepted >>>> as being a legitimate form of global law. >>>> >>>> IMO the main problem there is the weakness of the enforcement >>>> mechanisms. >>>> >>>> WTO rules and international copyright law have a much lower degree of >>>> legitimacy (especially given how much the world has changed since >>>> those rules were adopted, in ways that at least draw into question the >>>> continued validity of the assumptions on which those rule-making >>>> processes were based) but much stronger enforcement. >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> Norbert >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: >>>> 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person >>>> 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> 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: >>> 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 19 17:43:26 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:13:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case References: <96F95D1A-2FCF-4917-A695-E1C09B8CDB2D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <99B1BFE6-05F8-4FD7-B700-0EE025E73904@hserus.net> I was laughing at the sheer audacity of the defense lawyer when this first hit the news. Now I am just impressed. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: > From: David Farber > Date: 20 June 2013 2:58:10 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Dewayne Hendricks > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case > Date: June 19, 2013 4:51:34 PM EDT > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com > > Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case > By DSWright > June 19, 2013 > > > In what could become a precedent-setting legal battle, a Florida judge has ordered that the NSA provide the court with phone records of a man accused of armed robbery. What does this case have to do with national security? Absolutely nothing, but the records exist and could exonerate the man. > > In wake of the NSA surveillance scandal, a Florida judge has demanded that the federal agency hand over the phone records of a man charged with attempted robbery, to help solve a case that culminated in a murder. > > The motion provides a glimpse into how the National Security Agency’s surveillance records could be obtained in the future, now that whistleblowers have revealed details of the controversial spy program > > Terrance Brown is on trial in Fort Lauderdale for planning a robbery that resulted in the death of an armored car messenger. Brown’s lawyers say they can not get access to Brown’s phone records and that his carrier MetroPCS has lost the records but that the information could prove Brown’s innocence. > > The defendant has pleaded not guilty, but prosecutors have relied on the cell phone records of the robbery’s co-conspirators to try to prove Brown’s involvement. Defense attorneys believe that the missing phone records would prove that Brown was not involved in the July 2010 robbery attempt. The revelation of the NSA’s surveillance program has generated hope that Brown’s missing phone records could be obtained, and possibly prove his alleged innocence. > > “The government must be ordered to turn over the records for the two telephones that it attributes to Mr. Brown for the dates which are relevant to this case – the month of July of 2010,” attorney Marshall Dore Louis wrote in the motion to compel production of records. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/591238-ec20e345 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=591238&id_secret=591238-d223f43a > Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=591238&id_secret=591238-93f6132a&post_id=20130619172818:26BB69AC-D927-11E2-ADCD-91649E0AFAC1 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Wed Jun 19 18:08:28 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:08:28 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case In-Reply-To: <99B1BFE6-05F8-4FD7-B700-0EE025E73904@hserus.net> References: <96F95D1A-2FCF-4917-A695-E1C09B8CDB2D@gmail.com> <99B1BFE6-05F8-4FD7-B700-0EE025E73904@hserus.net> Message-ID: <001c01ce6d39$8fb76f50$af264df0$@jstyre.com> Except that the story is incorrect. They’re still wrangling, the court has not yet ordered the government to produce anything. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh Ramasubramanian Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:43 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case I was laughing at the sheer audacity of the defense lawyer when this first hit the news. Now I am just impressed. --srs (iPad) Begin forwarded message: From: David Farber Date: 20 June 2013 2:58:10 IST To: "ip" Subject: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case Reply-To: dave at farber.net Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case Date: June 19, 2013 4:51:34 PM EDT To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case By DSWright June 19, 2013 In what could become a precedent-setting legal battle, a Florida judge has ordered that the NSA provide the court with phone records of a man accused of armed robbery. What does this case have to do with national security? Absolutely nothing, but the records exist and could exonerate the man. In wake of the NSA surveillance scandal, a Florida judge has demanded that the federal agency hand over the phone records of a man charged with attempted robbery, to help solve a case that culminated in a murder. The motion provides a glimpse into how the National Security Agency’s surveillance records could be obtained in the future, now that whistleblowers have revealed details of the controversial spy program Terrance Brown is on trial in Fort Lauderdale for planning a robbery that resulted in the death of an armored car messenger. Brown’s lawyers say they can not get access to Brown’s phone records and that his carrier MetroPCS has lost the records but that the information could prove Brown’s innocence. The defendant has pleaded not guilty, but prosecutors have relied on the cell phone records of the robbery’s co-conspirators to try to prove Brown’s involvement. Defense attorneys believe that the missing phone records would prove that Brown was not involved in the July 2010 robbery attempt. The revelation of the NSA’s surveillance program has generated hope that Brown’s missing phone records could be obtained, and possibly prove his alleged innocence. “The government must be ordered to turn over the records for the two telephones that it attributes to Mr. Brown for the dates which are relevant to this case – the month of July of 2010,” attorney Marshall Dore Louis wrote in the motion to compel production of records. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/591238-ec20e345 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=591238 &id_secret=591238-d223f43a Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=591238 &id_secret=591238-93f6132a&post_id=20130619172818:26BB69AC-D927-11E2-ADCD-91649E0AFAC1 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 19 18:38:53 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:38:53 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing that governments can do can affect the future of the Internet. Here I disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the Internet, and there are plenty of examples out there already of how governments can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and other workarounds in some cases, but for the majority, national firewalls and censorship are effective. Which is why we need protocols and policies to avoid the sort of unilateral actions (or actions by national groupings of stakeholders) which threaten a global internet. As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big issue we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many of us. It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that concerns me and leads me to believe that the path back to internet freedom may be difficult. But I appreciate your optimism! Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kalchev Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL On 19.06.13 00:29, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's > future than may be apparent at this stage. The future of the Internet does not depend on any kind of agreements, or oversight. This is how the Internet actually came to dominate -- bypassing the requirements for multilateral agreements and oversight/regulation. Internet functions on peer trust only. > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism > is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than > for global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a > philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. This is only true, if you believed the US Government has ever seriously advocated multistakeholderism. It has done so only as a tool to deter other Governments from implementing 'direct control'. It is the human society as such, that has created and evolved multistakeholderism -- because Internet was employing new technology that governments were not ready to control. Whether the society will give this up remains to be seen. > I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA > oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on > this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. These things existed before Internet, they exist today on Internet in many, many places. Remember AOL and CompuServe? It seems many forget what IANA actually is: it is a repository/registry for various Internet related parameters. IANA has no power over Internet as such. What is it you think IANA can do to damage my business? Remove the port number or protocol assignment for my established application from it's database? How is this going to impact my business? It would be either hardcoded in code, or users will put it in local configuration. At the same time, by doing this, IANA will only create more havoc and reduce anyone's trust towards them. Hardly something IANA will ever do. ICANN is an entirely different topic. The Internet happily existed without ICANN for quite some time. It can continue functioning without ICANN. ICANN too, does not have any real power over Internet. What can ICANN do? Remove .cn or .ru for no justification? That will last only few hours, at most. > This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I > don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm > sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of > facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. The Internet was designed to withstand nuclear war, loss of most components, total disaster. We are, thankfully, still not there! Spying, hacking and abuse have always existed on Internet. If you can shut a power plant remotely, without sending your troops over there, why would you not do it? Especially, if you can attribute the action to some other party, eg. China. I see far greater problem in the absurd implementation of Internet technologies by governments and "critical infrastructure" (usually state run) businesses, that are the direct result of employing wannabe experts and greedy public (i.e. shared irresponsibility) corporations. Close your infrastructure holes and the US spies will have rather hard time penetrating -- at the point the costs will exceed the potential benefits. In my book, SPAM is a bigger problem than US spies hacking something, because SPAM severely reduces trust in e-mail communication, which impacts everyday life much more. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 19 18:53:51 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:53:51 +1000 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <00263A88C0F24AC880436C2A90F850FE@Toshiba> PS - in saying national firewalls and censorship are effective, I should clarify that I meant they do succeed in blocking access to certain information and sites for unsophisticated users. But no they are not effective - in most cases they include a lot of collateral damage and have significant unintended consequences. -----Original Message----- From: Ian Peter Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:38 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Daniel Kalchev Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing that governments can do can affect the future of the Internet. Here I disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the Internet, and there are plenty of examples out there already of how governments can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and other workarounds in some cases, but for the majority, national firewalls and censorship are effective. Which is why we need protocols and policies to avoid the sort of unilateral actions (or actions by national groupings of stakeholders) which threaten a global internet. As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big issue we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many of us. It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that concerns me and leads me to believe that the path back to internet freedom may be difficult. But I appreciate your optimism! Ian Peter -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Kalchev Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:26 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL On 19.06.13 00:29, Ian Peter wrote: > In time these events may prove far more serious for the Internet's > future than may be apparent at this stage. The future of the Internet does not depend on any kind of agreements, or oversight. This is how the Internet actually came to dominate -- bypassing the requirements for multilateral agreements and oversight/regulation. Internet functions on peer trust only. > The most powerful advocate of Internet freedom and multistakeholderism > is being seen now as a party acting in its self interest rather than > for global interests, and multistakeholder is beginning to seem like a > philosophy of convenience to protect US dominant interests. This is only true, if you believed the US Government has ever seriously advocated multistakeholderism. It has done so only as a tool to deter other Governments from implementing 'direct control'. It is the human society as such, that has created and evolved multistakeholderism -- because Internet was employing new technology that governments were not ready to control. Whether the society will give this up remains to be seen. > I expect to see more and more walled gardens. I expect the IANA > oversight question to be raised more loudly, and US intransigence on > this question to lead to serious repercussions for ICANN as well. These things existed before Internet, they exist today on Internet in many, many places. Remember AOL and CompuServe? It seems many forget what IANA actually is: it is a repository/registry for various Internet related parameters. IANA has no power over Internet as such. What is it you think IANA can do to damage my business? Remove the port number or protocol assignment for my established application from it's database? How is this going to impact my business? It would be either hardcoded in code, or users will put it in local configuration. At the same time, by doing this, IANA will only create more havoc and reduce anyone's trust towards them. Hardly something IANA will ever do. ICANN is an entirely different topic. The Internet happily existed without ICANN for quite some time. It can continue functioning without ICANN. ICANN too, does not have any real power over Internet. What can ICANN do? Remove .cn or .ru for no justification? That will last only few hours, at most. > This might be the end game for the global Internet as we know it. I > don't see how we move on from here to achieve sensible outcomes. I'm > sure global connectivity will remain, but I dont see the sort of > facility we used to enjoy and we probably all hoped for remaining intact. The Internet was designed to withstand nuclear war, loss of most components, total disaster. We are, thankfully, still not there! Spying, hacking and abuse have always existed on Internet. If you can shut a power plant remotely, without sending your troops over there, why would you not do it? Especially, if you can attribute the action to some other party, eg. China. I see far greater problem in the absurd implementation of Internet technologies by governments and "critical infrastructure" (usually state run) businesses, that are the direct result of employing wannabe experts and greedy public (i.e. shared irresponsibility) corporations. Close your infrastructure holes and the US spies will have rather hard time penetrating -- at the point the costs will exceed the potential benefits. In my book, SPAM is a bigger problem than US spies hacking something, because SPAM severely reduces trust in e-mail communication, which impacts everyday life much more. Daniel ____________________________________________________________ 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: 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 19 21:01:34 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 06:31:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case In-Reply-To: <001c01ce6d39$8fb76f50$af264df0$@jstyre.com> References: <96F95D1A-2FCF-4917-A695-E1C09B8CDB2D@gmail.com> <99B1BFE6-05F8-4FD7-B700-0EE025E73904@hserus.net> <001c01ce6d39$8fb76f50$af264df0$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <13f5f19b1fb.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Ah thanks. I didn't look this up in pacer --srs (htc one x) On 20 June 2013 3:38:28 AM "James S. Tyre" wrote: > Except that the story is incorrect. They’re still wrangling, the court has > not yet ordered the government to produce anything. > > > > -- > > James S. Tyre > > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > > jstyre at jstyre.com > > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation > > https://www.eff.org > > > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org > [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Suresh > Ramasubramanian > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 2:43 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet > Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case > > > > I was laughing at the sheer audacity of the defense lawyer when this first > hit the news. Now I am just impressed. > > --srs (iPad) > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: David Farber > Date: 20 June 2013 2:58:10 IST > To: "ip" > Subject: [IP] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For > Armed Robbery Case > Reply-To: dave at farber.net > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Dewayne Hendricks > Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance > Records For Armed Robbery Case > Date: June 19, 2013 4:51:34 PM EDT > To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net > Reply-To: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com > > Judge Orders NSA To Release Dragnet Surveillance Records For Armed Robbery Case > By DSWright > June 19, 2013 > > > In what could become a precedent-setting legal battle, a Florida judge has > ordered that the NSA provide the court with phone records of a man accused > of armed robbery. What does this case have to do with national security? > Absolutely nothing, but the records exist and could exonerate the man. > > In wake of the NSA surveillance scandal, a Florida judge has demanded that > the federal agency hand over the phone records of a man charged with > attempted robbery, to help solve a case that culminated in a murder. > > The motion provides a glimpse into how the National Security Agency’s > surveillance records could be obtained in the future, now that > whistleblowers have revealed details of the controversial spy program > > Terrance Brown is on trial in Fort Lauderdale for planning a robbery that > resulted in the death of an armored car messenger. Brown’s lawyers say they > can not get access to Brown’s phone records and that his carrier MetroPCS > has lost the records but that the information could prove Brown’s innocence. > > The defendant has pleaded not guilty, but prosecutors have relied on the > cell phone records of the robbery’s co-conspirators to try to prove Brown’s > involvement. Defense attorneys believe that the missing phone records would > prove that Brown was not involved in the July 2010 robbery attempt. The > revelation of the NSA’s surveillance program has generated hope that > Brown’s missing phone records could be obtained, and possibly prove his > alleged innocence. > > “The government must be ordered to turn over the records for the two > telephones that it attributes to Mr. Brown for the dates which are relevant > to this case – the month of July of 2010,” attorney Marshall Dore Louis > wrote in the motion to compel production of records. > > [snip] > > Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/591238-ec20e345 > Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=591238 > > &id_secret=591238-d223f43a > Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=591238 > > &id_secret=591238-93f6132a&post_id=20130619172818:26BB69AC-D927-11E2-ADCD-91649E0AFAC1 > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 02:20:09 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:50:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If google DNS resolves correctly, the blocking is a moot point isnt it. I mean fair few techies use 8.8.8.8, some organizations admins I know set it as the default DNS too. -C On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:45 PM, wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Today a DNS filtration was activated for a list of gambling related > websites in Bulgaria. This is because of a new law that requires gambling > websites to have license in order to be active. > > All ISPs have complied with the law, and now the domains from the list > resolve to 127.0.0.1 > Most of the websites are not even hosted in Bulgaria. > An example site is *http://www.bet365.com* > > If Google DNS and other providers are used, the websites are accessible. > > Here is the court order ,sent to all ISPs: * > http://www.dkh.minfin.bg/bg/pubs/2/548* (in > Bulgarian, but you see the list there) > > Kind regards, > Iliya Bazlyankov > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 20 04:07:30 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:37:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] George Orwell stinging indictment of ideological cant Message-ID: <862ywbmjf3x18er3j7f1q63a.1371715650391@email.android.com> The widespread invocation of orwellian metaphors to describe prism and similar initiatives produced this very interesting counterpoint.. and his distaste for several words and phrases that are a popular part of several people's lexicon.  http://m.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/06/stop-taking-orwells-name-in-vain/277027/?google_editors_picks=true --srs -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu Thu Jun 20 04:37:15 2013 From: y.morenets at againstcybercrime.eu ('Yuliya Morenets') Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:37:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] Flash session on the protection of vulnerable children online_EuroDIG 2013 Message-ID: <9f4168b7b42f063a376c280306d17fcbe72d6e71@ssl0.ovh.net> Dear all, I would like to invite all to attend in person or remotely  the flash session 5 we organize today at EuroDIG. It will take place today, 20th of June, at 17:30-18:00 Lisbon time.  The Flash is about the risks and responsibilities and possibilities of empowerment of vulnerable children in these fields.   This flash aims to present the outcome of the survey, based on the first results of the sociological investigation, which is the developed Research framework on the use of ICTs by vulnerable children and Youth available for implementation and use in all interested countries. For more information, please check: http://www.eurodig.org/flash-5-2013 I look forward to discussing the issue together, Best regards, Yuliya Morenets (Ms) TaC-Together against Cybercrime International -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 05:33:59 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:33:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> Message-ID: <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> On 20.06.13 01:38, Ian Peter wrote: > Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing that > governments can do can affect the future of the Internet. Here I > disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the Internet, > and there are plenty of examples out there already of how governments > can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and other workarounds in > some cases, but for the majority, national firewalls and censorship > are effective. I have no assumption related to whether "Governments" can affect the future of the Internet. In my opinion, Governments have no mandate to do anything related to Internet, as such -- *although they may have mandate to regulate activities that use Internet **technology or resources*. This is quite an difference in my opinion and probably the core of our "disagreement". Things might have been different, if Governments in fact built and controlled the Internet -- which is not the case. But Governments are free to build and control their very own Internets: in fact, some do --- thing is, nobody else is interested in participating. It could of course be fixed, by disallowing competition... As an example, I don't think any Government has any mandate to regulate Earth's gravity. As a consequence, water drops will continue to fall from the sky and fill rivers that will continue to flow (the Internet), despite the fact that in some places artificial structures prevent that free flow (national firewalls?). Governments could however pretend they have mandate to control "national water resources" which comprise of all water flows trough "their" territory -- and insist on regulating anyone who "operates with water". However, if those who control the flow of water on Earth (God?) decide, that they wish that no single drop of water will fall on the territory of an particular country, there is nothing the government of that country can do about their "mandate to control water" -- except of course to declare God hostile, and who knows, start a war :) If Governments could alter Earth's gravity as they wish, they could cause rain drops intended for another country to drop on their "own" sold, or the other way around. > As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big issue > we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many of us. > It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that concerns me > and leads me to believe that the path back to internet freedom may be > difficult. I do not believe the US Government is your peer. Your statements strikes me as if you believed the US Government is the sole guardian of the Internet and multistakeholderism.. This is interesting, as by definition you cannot trust any (elected) Government, as on the next election you end up with different set of "governors" with possibly completely different goals and agendas. > But I appreciate your optimism! Thanks for the kind words, but I am not exactly optimist. If the drink is not to my taste, the glass is always half full (I don't want any more). If the drink is good, the it is always half empty (needs to be refilled). But in this particular discussion, I am merely pointing out common sense. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 06:04:22 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 13:04:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg> This is a bit extreme statement. There are few hundred ISPs operating in Bulgaria and certainly many of the bigger ISPs have not received such letter and thus not even aware of the "order". Also, as already pointed out, such measures are extremely ineffective. Users do not even need to use Google's or anyone else's name service -- they just need to run their own recursive resolver. Which most of the non-individual Internet users anyway already do. As do most of the thousands micro-ISPs that operate "LAN networks" in their neighborhoods. At the end, this will result in ISPs that implement filtering losing customers, which will in turn result in the filters being removed. Situations like this is one of the good examples of abysmal regulation of Internet, when it comes from Governments. The typical situation is that well paid, close-to-the-powers-of-the-day "experts" consult on various Internet regulation topics and we always end up with stupid situations. Things like this were already attempted few times to fight torrent sites, without anyone ever noticing. By the way, may I ask why facebook.com and others are not being DNS filtered? There is lots of gambling in there! :) Daniel On 18.06.13 18:15, iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg wrote: > Dear colleagues, > Today a DNS filtration was activated for a list of gambling related > websites in Bulgaria. This is because of a new law that requires > gambling websites to have license in order to be active. > All ISPs have complied with the law, and now the domains from the list > resolve to 127.0.0.1 > Most of the websites are not even hosted in Bulgaria. > An example site is _http://www.bet365.com_ > If Google DNS and other providers are used, the websites are accessible. > Here is the court order ,sent to all ISPs: > _http://www.dkh.minfin.bg/bg/pubs/2/548_ (in Bulgarian, but you see > the list there) > Kind regards, > Iliya Bazlyankov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 20 06:11:59 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 03:11:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg> References: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> Daniel Kalchev [20/06/13 13:04 +0300]: >This is a bit extreme statement. > >There are few hundred ISPs operating in Bulgaria and certainly many >of the bigger ISPs have not received such letter and thus not even >aware of the "order". There are of course other ways, such as nullrouting IP addresses / CIDRs The vast majority of users actually do use their ISP resolvers and not google DNS or a dnscache / pdns recursor on a linux box in their closet so even if the move was suggested by an overpaid consultant with political connections, it will be effective for quite a few people. In the case of online gambling, and in some other cases I would hesitate to draw a slippery slope relationship between filtering those and filtering sites that affect free speech. If there is a national law that prohibits or strictly regulates gambling, and if a sizeable section of the gamblers in the country then start using offshore (and online) casinos based out of costa rica, malta etc locations where they've moved for tax reasons, a more permissive legal regime etc.. this reaction is kind of expected. This is strongly regulated in the USA as well and any unwary CEO of a gambling company who sets foot even for a few hours in the USA (such as when changing planes to travel from a south american haven country to one in europe) is liable to be arrested. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/03/raymond-bitar-full-tilt-poker-arrested_n_1646626.html srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 07:01:20 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:01:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> References: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg> <20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51C2E100.8050505@digsys.bg> On 20.06.13 13:11, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Daniel Kalchev [20/06/13 13:04 +0300]: >> This is a bit extreme statement. >> >> There are few hundred ISPs operating in Bulgaria and certainly many >> of the bigger ISPs have not received such letter and thus not even >> aware of the "order". > > There are of course other ways, such as nullrouting IP addresses / CIDRs As it seems, some ISPs have implemented it this way. Haven't seen the order outside of that web site and can't comment on what it asks to be implemented. The mere fact I have not seen it yet comes to say most of the ISPs in Bulgarian haven't too. I am however not going to dive into details as to not give more ideas of what can be done -- which would complicate everyone's life. > The vast majority of users actually do use their ISP resolvers and not > google DNS or a dnscache / pdns recursor on a linux box in their > closet so > even if the move was suggested by an overpaid consultant with political > connections, it will be effective for quite a few people. Internet users in Bulgaria are quite aware of these things. As mentioned already --- we already had few such cases, that also involved IP filtering to the sites by close-to-ther-powers ISPs. Those users that cared, actually made the effort to do what it takes and these "measures" were effective only for few days, at best. It is also interesting to note that many of the ISPs that do in fact implement filtering, do educate their customers how to circumvent it, perhaps in fear of not losing them. An unfortunate side effect of this event will be that more users will switch to alternative DNS resolvers and VPN services. Well, fortunate for the likes of Google, who will get more traffic to feed the Algorithm. > In the case of online gambling, and in some other cases I would > hesitate to > draw a slippery slope relationship between filtering those and filtering > sites that affect free speech. Precisely. > If there is a national law that prohibits or strictly regulates gambling, > and if a sizeable section of the gamblers in the country then start using > offshore (and online) casinos based out of costa rica, malta etc > locations > where they've moved for tax reasons, a more permissive legal regime etc.. > this reaction is kind of expected. The law is very vague. In particular, the law explicitly says that it is *legal* to offer gambling services online in Bulgaria if you are based in the EU. It seems that most of the sites/operators in the EU are in fact based in the EU. Therefore, they are not breaching the Bulgarian law.... Please note, I am in no way advocating unlawful gambling, not paying of taxes etc. However, I am absolutely and strongly opposed to anything that impairs Internet's neutrality, in particular imposing on Internet operators of any kind to do the job of police, investigation and law enforcement. The Internet is like the land on which we walk -- you don't ask the land to fall under the criminal's feet, right? Also, the recent week is full of events and protests in Bulgaria and having this "order" in the background is just an attempt to sneak in some inappropriate regulation, which will then be considered "precedent" and then put in regular use. I can only see this situation add more oil to the fuel of protests, as information spreads wider. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg Thu Jun 20 06:59:22 2013 From: iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg (iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 10:59:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: <20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> References: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg>,<20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> Message-ID: > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian > There are of course other ways, such as nullrouting IP addresses / CIDRs I am aware of 2 ISPs based in Sofia that do this, and the rest choose the domain blocking method via DNS. @Daniel - I am not aware about the smaller ISPs in Varna for example, but all the biggest that have most customer base (more than 50% of users) have blocked access to the mentioned websites - Vivacom, Globul, Mtel (Megalan+Spectrum Net), Net1, Powernet , etc. If the smaller ones have not blocked the access, unfortunately they are subject to some very weird fines. Best regards, Iliya Bazlyankov -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 07:39:42 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:09:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] [Off-Topic] India planning privacy violating surveillance Message-ID: As in the Reuters today: India has launched a wide-ranging surveillance programme that will give its security agencies and even income tax officials the ability to tap directly into e-mails and phone calls without oversight by courts or parliament, several sources said. http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/india-surveillance-idINDEE95J04V20130620?feedType=nl&feedName=intopnews I expect this will fizzle out like many other Indian IT/technology enhancement ventures - but the risk is if it succeeds. There's been near zero coverage of this overall, which indicates (IMHO) a great disinterest and distrust of anything the government is doing. In general the attitude I see is "If the government's doing it, it'll probably not be worth doing - and if it does succeed nobody will use it". Given the government is supposed to be the voice of it's people ours is really very silent... -C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 07:46:29 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 07:46:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> Message-ID: <052c01ce6dab$d3fea800$7bfbf800$@gmail.com> Daniel, You seem to have a somewhat odd and certainly not universally shared understanding of the nature and role of ``government`` perhaps reflecting your particular historical experience. In many (most?) jurisdictions ``government`` is seen as being the operational arm of processes of responsible democratic governance and thus at some level and in some form responding to the will of the citizens as articulated through these democratic processes. So, insofar as citizens have a right to (self)regulate affairs as might affect them and within certain circumscribed jurisdictional boundaries and within certain formalized procedures then of course, they (and their ``government``) have a ``mandate``to do what you are indicating they have no mandate to do i.e. regulate the actions of their fellow citizens including their actions with respect to the Internet. (The Internet is a product of the actions and behaviours of persons and not a natural creation such as gravity so your example doesn`t fit.) That specific governments are not always acting in this representative manner is of course, the subject of daily headlines but most of the actions of those opposing particular governments (Turkey, Brazil etc.) is not to deny this form of accountability but rather to assert that particular governments and their leaders are not appropriately living up to these processes and values. Whether citizens through their government should or are able to effectively regulate x or y (including the Internet) is of course another issue. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kalchev Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 5:34 AM To: Ian Peter Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL On 20.06.13 01:38, Ian Peter wrote: Daniel, your basic assumption seems to be that nothing that governments can do can affect the future of the Internet. Here I disagree. I think they have enormous power to break up the Internet, and there are plenty of examples out there already of how governments can restrict open access. Yes, there are Tor and other workarounds in some cases, but for the majority, national firewalls and censorship are effective. I have no assumption related to whether "Governments" can affect the future of the Internet. In my opinion, Governments have no mandate to do anything related to Internet, as such -- although they may have mandate to regulate activities that use Internet technology or resources. This is quite an difference in my opinion and probably the core of our "disagreement". Things might have been different, if Governments in fact built and controlled the Internet -- which is not the case. But Governments are free to build and control their very own Internets: in fact, some do --- thing is, nobody else is interested in participating. It could of course be fixed, by disallowing competition... As an example, I don't think any Government has any mandate to regulate Earth's gravity. As a consequence, water drops will continue to fall from the sky and fill rivers that will continue to flow (the Internet), despite the fact that in some places artificial structures prevent that free flow (national firewalls?). Governments could however pretend they have mandate to control "national water resources" which comprise of all water flows trough "their" territory -- and insist on regulating anyone who "operates with water". However, if those who control the flow of water on Earth (God?) decide, that they wish that no single drop of water will fall on the territory of an particular country, there is nothing the government of that country can do about their "mandate to control water" -- except of course to declare God hostile, and who knows, start a war :) If Governments could alter Earth's gravity as they wish, they could cause rain drops intended for another country to drop on their "own" sold, or the other way around. As you say,the Internet is based on peer trust. I think the big issue we face is that the trust is now highly questionable to many of us. It's the breach of trust by a dominant stakeholder that concerns me and leads me to believe that the path back to internet freedom may be difficult. I do not believe the US Government is your peer. Your statements strikes me as if you believed the US Government is the sole guardian of the Internet and multistakeholderism.. This is interesting, as by definition you cannot trust any (elected) Government, as on the next election you end up with different set of "governors" with possibly completely different goals and agendas. But I appreciate your optimism! Thanks for the kind words, but I am not exactly optimist. If the drink is not to my taste, the glass is always half full (I don't want any more). If the drink is good, the it is always half empty (needs to be refilled). But in this particular discussion, I am merely pointing out common sense. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 08:05:39 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 12:05:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies In-Reply-To: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Norbert, I am not sure I clearly understand the purpose of the Wisdom Task Force proposal you referred to in your message below. Is it guidance for members of parliaments and their staff when developing policies? Is there a geographical scope implied (eg, EU)? Is there a connection with policy research and evaluation, in terms or methods or otherwise? What's next? Will a (multistakeholder) group be formed to follow-up on this? How did you come up with the list of WGs? Thanks Mawaki On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Andrea Glorioso wrote on Mon, 29 Apr 2013: > > > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific guidelines / > > methodologies to assess the impact of Internet-related policies > > (which I define on the fly as "policies (including regulation, soft > > law, research activities) which either impact on, or are impacted by, > > the Internet). > > Sorry that I'm only now getting around to responding to the very > important and interesting questions that you're raising... hopefully > I'm not too late and the topic is still of interest, > > > Questions that come to my mind: > > > > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure to > > justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of > > policies on it, and its impact on policies? > > I would respond to this question with a clear yes, but more > importantly, it is becoming increasingly impossible to separate the > Internet, and what it enables, from what used to be the offline world > but isn't so offline anymore. > > I would argue that this causes significant aspects of the traditional > ways of thinking about public policy and about the corresponding legal > frameworks to be not suitable for todays's world. Many if the > underlying heuristics and assumptions are not valid anymore. > > > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or > > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? > > No... those methodologies may be less badly outdated than what experts > on legal systems (the lawyers) learn during their studies, but the > world is changing so quickly nowadays that all existing methodologies > are already outdated by the time that they're recognized as “existing > methodologies”. What we now need is analytical methods that are updated, > through an appropriate multistakeholder process, in real time, as the > world is changing. > > > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the > > impact of Internet-related policies? > > The same kind of questions that have always been appropriate to ask for > proposals of any kind: What is the intended effect? What is the cost? > How likely is it that the intended effect will be achieved? What are > the risks in regard to negative side-effects? How can those risks be > managed or mitigated? What is the potential cost of mitigation measures > that may be needed? What negative side-effects are likely to remain > after any mitigation measures? Is, in view of all of the risks and > costs, the proposed measure worthwhile? > > > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) > > should one consider when performing such impact assessment? > > I find the "logical thinking process" tools of Goldratt's Theory of > Constraints to be highly helpful for all kinds of analysis and > deliberation in complex systemic contexts. See e.g.: > > H. William Dettmer: > The Logical Thinking process. A Systems Approach to Complex Problem > Solving. > Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007 (Quality Press) > ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5 > > On top of that I believe that we need an international multistakeholder > process to develop more specific analysis methodologies, to keep them > up to date, and to apply them to current policy challenges. That is a > primary objective of the Wisdom Task Force proposal > http://WisdomTaskForce.org/RFB/1 > > Greetings, > Norbert > > -- > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person > 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gichana.j at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 08:08:43 2013 From: gichana.j at gmail.com (Joseph Mokaya Gichana) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 14:08:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] .l Message-ID: ll cffxl" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 08:53:41 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 08:53:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Air-L] Scholarships for new Masters in International Politics of the Internet Message-ID: <059c01ce6db5$383ea1e0$a8bbe5a0$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of Madeline Carr Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 8:15 AM To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org Subject: [Air-L] Scholarships for new Masters in International Politics of the Internet Hi all, Could I ask you to spread the word about a new Masters program that we are introducing in September? The Masters in International Politics of the Internet is a multidisciplinary degree hosted in the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth - one of the world's leading IP/IR departments. Students will have the opportunity to study Internet governance, cyber security (from both a political and strategic perspective), Internet Freedom and cyber war as well as modules from our law and computer science faculties. For further info: www.aber.ac.uk/ccrc Also note that we have a number of very generous scholarships available for this program. They are only open to UK/EU students (a funding restriction, not an indication of our interest) but they pay all fees plus living allowance. Scholarship details can also be found at the above address. Thanks, Madeline Dr. Madeline Carr Lecturer in International Politics and the Cyber Dimension Department of International Politics Aberystwyth University Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3FE Wales +44 01970 621955 mob: 0752 867 2088 madelinemcarr at gmail.com _______________________________________________ The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 09:41:40 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 16:41:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <052c01ce6dab$d3fea800$7bfbf800$@gmail.com> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> <052c01ce6dab$d3fea800$7bfbf800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 20.06.2013, at 14:46, "michael gurstein" wrote: > Daniel, > > You seem to have a somewhat odd and certainly not universally shared understanding of the nature and role of ``government`` perhaps reflecting your particular historical experience. This is certainly true and I understand that the lack of such experience definitely precludes the other participants to fully appreciate my concerns. Let me say that I fully agree with the democracy/representation theory. I sincerely hope to live and see the day when it is fully implemented (even if I will have to live thousands of years) > > In many (most?) jurisdictions ``government`` is seen as being the operational arm of processes of responsible democratic governance and thus at some level and in some form responding to the will of the citizens as articulated through these democratic processes. This is the theory. Unfortunately, in almost every real life case, this is not the case. It is "almost" so, and as they say the devil is in the details. > So, insofar as citizens have a right to (self)regulate affairs as might affect them and within certain circumscribed jurisdictional boundaries and within certain formalized procedures then of course, they (and their ``government``) have a ``mandate``to do what you are indicating they have no mandate to do i.e. regulate the actions of their fellow citizens including their actions with respect to the Internet. (The Internet is a product of the actions and behaviours of persons and not a natural creation such as gravity so your example doesn`t fit.) Here lies the problem! >From the point of view of *any* national government and the individuals whose democratic will it theoretically represents, Internet is a natural creation. If for no other reason, but the fact that it consists not only of those individuals in a single jurisdiction, but also of the individuals residing in other jurisdictions and "operating" under wildly different premises and regulations. For example, do you believe the Bulgarian Government has any right to regulate the actions and behaviors of the fellow USA citizens? Or the fellow China citizens? Because, those citizens too are part of the Internet, not only Bulgarian citizens. By the same measure, does the Bulgarian Government have any say about the behavior of the Bulgarian citizens that happen to live say in the US? What if this contradicts with the requirements the US Government has for that same Bulgarian citizens while they do reside in the US? We had this argument already in the past and it basically boils down to the fact that any Government's mandate is geographically (so to speak) defined and restricted, while Internet is not. > Whether citizens through their government should or are able to effectively regulate x or y (including the Internet) is of course another issue. This is where we switch from the theory to the practice. Nobody creates and put's in effect laws, that cannot be implemented (*). So why continue with the fruitless efforts, that leave a lot of Internet users (real citizens) frustrated in the process? Daniel (*) We in Bulgaria are special, because most of the "good" laws that we create, are not and sometimes clearly cannot be implemented. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 11:10:28 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:10:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> <052c01ce6dab$d3fea800$7bfbf800$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <065b01ce6dc8$535e0340$fa1a09c0$@gmail.com> Hi Daniel, From: Daniel Kalchev [mailto:daniel at digsys.bg] Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2013 9:42 AM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Ian Peter' Subject: Re: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL On 20.06.2013, at 14:46, "michael gurstein" wrote: Daniel, You seem to have a somewhat odd and certainly not universally shared understanding of the nature and role of ``government`` perhaps reflecting your particular historical experience. This is certainly true and I understand that the lack of such experience definitely precludes the other participants to fully appreciate my concerns. Let me say that I fully agree with the democracy/representation theory. I sincerely hope to live and see the day when it is fully implemented (even if I will have to live thousands of years) [MG>] yes. In many (most?) jurisdictions ``government`` is seen as being the operational arm of processes of responsible democratic governance and thus at some level and in some form responding to the will of the citizens as articulated through these democratic processes. This is the theory. Unfortunately, in almost every real life case, this is not the case. It is "almost" so, and as they say the devil is in the details. [MG>] yes, for sure So, insofar as citizens have a right to (self)regulate affairs as might affect them and within certain circumscribed jurisdictional boundaries and within certain formalized procedures then of course, they (and their ``government``) have a ``mandate``to do what you are indicating they have no mandate to do i.e. regulate the actions of their fellow citizens including their actions with respect to the Internet. (The Internet is a product of the actions and behaviours of persons and not a natural creation such as gravity so your example doesn`t fit.) Here lies the problem! >From the point of view of *any* national government and the individuals whose democratic will it theoretically represents, Internet is a natural creation. If for no other reason, but the fact that it consists not only of those individuals in a single jurisdiction, but also of the individuals residing in other jurisdictions and "operating" under wildly different premises and regulations. [MG>] Interesting observation. I`m not sure I quite agree but I can see where you are going with this. For example, do you believe the Bulgarian Government has any right to regulate the actions and behaviors of the fellow USA citizens? Or the fellow China citizens? Because, those citizens too are part of the Internet, not only Bulgarian citizens. [MG>] true, but they do have the right to regulate their own citizens and collectively they have the right to regulate the collective actions of all citizens of all countries (again of course in theory) and this would be my understanding of, for example the UD Human Rights and say the International Court (at least for those countries which have signed on to it. And I think it is this kind of approach which we are discussing in this specific context is it not. By the same measure, does the Bulgarian Government have any say about the behavior of the Bulgarian citizens that happen to live say in the US? What if this contradicts with the requirements the US Government has for that same Bulgarian citizens while they do reside in the US? [MG>] as above although (I`m not s a lawyer) the Bulgarian government would I imagine have some residual rights with respect to it`s overseas citizens (as for example with respect to taxation) as long as they retain their citizenship, passport, and the ``privileges`` that go along with that citizenship. We had this argument already in the past and it basically boils down to the fact that any Government's mandate is geographically (so to speak) defined and restricted, while Internet is not. [MG>] see above (and I think this is a very complex issue involving for example what might be meant by ``geographically defined and restricted``--I would guess that there were various approaches to defining this depending on one`s point view, objectives, specific legal definitions etc.etc. Whether citizens through their government should or are able to effectively regulate x or y (including the Internet) is of course another issue. This is where we switch from the theory to the practice. Nobody creates and put's in effect laws, that cannot be implemented (*). So why continue with the fruitless efforts, that leave a lot of Internet users (real citizens) frustrated in the process? [MG>] As you say this is where things get practical and I would guess one would need to answer your final question on a case by case, context by contex, jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. M Daniel (*) We in Bulgaria are special, because most of the "good" laws that we create, are not and sometimes clearly cannot be implemented. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Thu Jun 20 11:45:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 17:45:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] WisdomTF (was Re: Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies) In-Reply-To: References: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130620174528.6fa0ea6b@quill.bollow.ch> Hi Mawaki - good to hear from you! Mawaki Chango wrote: > I am not sure I clearly understand the purpose of the Wisdom Task > Force proposal you referred to in your message below. To facility good, globally coordinated governance for global issues. One way that WisdomTF can be described is “an IETF for global policy issues”. IETF develops technical specifications which are implemented by the people who develop the software and hardware that makes the Internet work. WisdomTF will develop recommendation documents on global public policy matters, with the aim of informing national parliamentary decision-making processes. > Is it guidance > for members of parliaments and their staff when developing policies? Yes, and for members of the media and the general public too. I hope that eventually it will be political suicide to simply ignore the insights and recommendations of the relevant WisdomTF documents. :-) > Is there a geographical scope implied (eg, EU)? The intended geographical scope is global, since global concerns should really be addressed globally, and everyone worldwide (or at least everyone who is able to access the Internet and to communicate internationally, in writing) must be enabled to take part in the deliberative processes. > Is there a > connection with policy research and evaluation, in terms or methods > or otherwise? The idea is that WisdomTF output documents (which are intended to be input documents for national political process) should inform not only about possible policy choices, but also about what is known about the likely results of those policy choices. Hence where available, formal outputs of policy research and evaluation should certainly be referenced. > What's next? In the absence of funding, right now the idea is dormant waiting for me to get to a point of having some time available for working on it... > Will a (multistakeholder) group be formed to follow-up on this? Ideally yes - I'm not sure yet though how to achieve that. > How did you come up with the list of WGs? No real process -- just pondering about what are some important topics for which it might be relatively easy to reach critical mass. Greetings, Norbert > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Andrea Glorioso wrote on Mon, 29 Apr 2013: > > > > > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific > > > guidelines / methodologies to assess the impact of > > > Internet-related policies (which I define on the fly as "policies > > > (including regulation, soft law, research activities) which > > > either impact on, or are impacted by, the Internet). > > > > Sorry that I'm only now getting around to responding to the very > > important and interesting questions that you're raising... hopefully > > I'm not too late and the topic is still of interest, > > > > > Questions that come to my mind: > > > > > > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure > > > to justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of > > > policies on it, and its impact on policies? > > > > I would respond to this question with a clear yes, but more > > importantly, it is becoming increasingly impossible to separate the > > Internet, and what it enables, from what used to be the offline > > world but isn't so offline anymore. > > > > I would argue that this causes significant aspects of the > > traditional ways of thinking about public policy and about the > > corresponding legal frameworks to be not suitable for todays's > > world. Many if the underlying heuristics and assumptions are not > > valid anymore. > > > > > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or > > > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? > > > > No... those methodologies may be less badly outdated than what > > experts on legal systems (the lawyers) learn during their studies, > > but the world is changing so quickly nowadays that all existing > > methodologies are already outdated by the time that they're > > recognized as “existing methodologies”. What we now need is > > analytical methods that are updated, through an appropriate > > multistakeholder process, in real time, as the world is changing. > > > > > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the > > > impact of Internet-related policies? > > > > The same kind of questions that have always been appropriate to ask > > for proposals of any kind: What is the intended effect? What is the > > cost? How likely is it that the intended effect will be achieved? > > What are the risks in regard to negative side-effects? How can > > those risks be managed or mitigated? What is the potential cost of > > mitigation measures that may be needed? What negative side-effects > > are likely to remain after any mitigation measures? Is, in view of > > all of the risks and costs, the proposed measure worthwhile? > > > > > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) > > > should one consider when performing such impact assessment? > > > > I find the "logical thinking process" tools of Goldratt's Theory of > > Constraints to be highly helpful for all kinds of analysis and > > deliberation in complex systemic contexts. See e.g.: > > > > H. William Dettmer: > > The Logical Thinking process. A Systems Approach to Complex > > Problem Solving. > > Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007 (Quality Press) > > ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5 > > > > On top of that I believe that we need an international > > multistakeholder process to develop more specific analysis > > methodologies, to keep them up to date, and to apply them to > > current policy challenges. That is a primary objective of the > > Wisdom Task Force proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org/RFB/1 > > > > Greetings, > > Norbert > > > > -- > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > accept > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 12:00:37 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:00:37 +0300 Subject: [governance] RE: Has U.S. started an Internet war? By Bruce Schneier + tinyURL In-Reply-To: <065b01ce6dc8$535e0340$fa1a09c0$@gmail.com> References: <00bc01ce6c37$7805cc10$68116430$@gmail.com> <994913A68C4340A9B835514F8A05E5E4@Toshiba> <51C15D14.8070301@digsys.bg> <56CA1D2607B14577A4984AF87824EC7F@Toshiba> <51C2CC87.9060706@digsys.bg> <052c01ce6dab$d3fea800$7bfbf800$@gmail.com> <065b01ce6dc8$535e0340$fa1a09c0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51C32725.8090800@digsys.bg> On 20.06.13 18:10, michael gurstein wrote: > > For example, do you believe the Bulgarian Government has any right to > regulate the actions and behaviors of the fellow USA citizens? Or the > fellow China citizens? Because, those citizens too are part of the > Internet, not only Bulgarian citizens. > > */[MG>] true, but they do have the right to regulate their own > citizens and collectively they have the right to regulate the > collective actions of all citizens of all countries (again of course > in theory) and this would be my understanding of, for example the UD > Human Rights and say the International Court (at least for those > countries which have signed on to it... And I think it is this kind of > approach which we are discussing in this specific context is it not.../* > We just observed this with the request by the "Commission of Gambling" (for lack of better translation), requesting the filtering of some 21 gambling sites by Bulgarian ISPs. (*) Now, while I have no problem personally to see this implemented - I am never interested in gambling and those customers who are and feel betrayed, can unfortunately leave or find some other (easy) way to access those sites. This is a "small" cost to pay, for not breaching the law and not being used as a scapegoat for someone's political agenda. But I have wider problem, related to Internet neutrality and free flow of communications and ultimately human rights. Let me try explaining it. Here we have, several parties. A. The Government via it's Commission of Gambling. B. The non-conforming web sites. C. The end users who access those web sites. D. The ISPs who provide communications between D. In essence, *A is asking D to prevent any communication between B and C, because B would not agree to pay taxes and obey whatever regulations A deemed appropriate*. Therefore, in order to comply with it's Government regulation, D is going to breach their contract with C and knowingly cause harm to B. Now, the premise is that B is an non-Bulgarian entity. Say, an US corporation (Zynga is a good example, although they are not in the list --- even if they do offer an Poker game -- gambling, without question :)) You still with me? You still think it is ok for the Bulgarian Government to cut off the US corporation from the Bulgarian Internet user, because the US corporation does not want to pay additional taxes in Bulgaria AND they also do not want to be subject to an (not yet existing) licensing regime... My concern is that if we support behavior like this, we will end up in an very interesting world. As a side note, the law in question is so absurd, it says that commission can put a list of web sites on their web site, and that ISPs are obliged (or they are criminals) within 24 hours to implement the filtering. As you can imagine, that web site could end up with any web site listed there..... (sorry to sort of merge this discussion with the other one) > *//* > > By the same measure, does the Bulgarian Government have any say about > the behavior of the Bulgarian citizens that happen to live say in the > US? What if this contradicts with the requirements the US Government > has for that same Bulgarian citizens while they do reside in the US? > > */[MG>] as above although (I`m not s a lawyer) the Bulgarian > government would I imagine have some residual rights with respect to > it`s overseas citizens (as for example with respect to taxation) as > long as they retain their citizenship, passport, and the > ``privileges`` that go along with that citizenship. /* > In any case, I am quite sure the Bulgarian government cannot ask Bulgarian citizens to break the laws of the country they reside in or visit, just because they happen to posses Bulgarian passports. This does not seem related to Internet in any way, but considering that Internet information "travels freely" worldwide, it is very much related. Daniel (*) We know why this is happening and why it is happening now. It is happening because a well known businessman with well known connections with the just elected political parties owns two of the three licensed gambling enterprises in Bulgaria. But even if this was not the case, it is a dangerous precedent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From daniel at digsys.bg Thu Jun 20 12:07:20 2013 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 19:07:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] DNS filtration activated for gambling websites in Bulgaria In-Reply-To: References: <51C2D3A6.6060704@digsys.bg>,<20130620101159.GA12363@hserus.net> Message-ID: <51C328B8.8030204@digsys.bg> On 20.06.13 13:59, iliya.bazlyankov at uninet.bg wrote: > *> From:* Suresh Ramasubramanian > > There are of course other ways, such as nullrouting IP addresses / CIDRs > I am aware of 2 ISPs based in Sofia that do this, and the rest choose > the domain blocking method via DNS. > @Daniel - I am not aware about the smaller ISPs in Varna for example, > but all the biggest that have most customer base (more than 50% of > users) have blocked access to the mentioned websites - Vivacom, > Globul, Mtel (Megalan+Spectrum Net), Net1, Powernet , etc. > If the smaller ones have not blocked the access, unfortunately they > are subject to some very weird fines. > The fines are in the range 5000-15000 EUR. I am more concerned by the method this filtering is requested: a list of web sites appears on some "Commission of Gambling" (or whatever their translation is in English) and all ISPs in Bulgaria (which are in the hundreds) must implement this filtering within 24 hour, or they are declared criminals. Any web site could appear in that list.... for no reasons, because there is no requirement for this to be documented. It absolutely does not matter how "big" the ISPs. The ISP I am dealing with definitely does not focus on having large market share, but instead on covering the widest possible user base (the whole of Bulgaria) and other values. There are certainly others like that. Now imagine there are 10,000 hardcode gamblers in Bulgaria and most of them are spread with those small ISPs. Some small ISPs might even specialize in this business, because gambler's requirements to Internet connectivity are very specific. Do you know of any ISP that has received this order in writing, as official document? Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 15:27:18 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 15:27:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Surveillance discovered in Brazil Message-ID: And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. More on the "mosaic" project at: (In Portuguese) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... Carol Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Jun 20 18:07:15 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 18:07:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance African style Message-ID: http://www.afrinic.net/multimedia/download/af_brochure.pdf -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From kichango at gmail.com Fri Jun 21 06:09:08 2013 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:09:08 +0000 Subject: [governance] WisdomTF (was Re: Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies) In-Reply-To: <20130620174528.6fa0ea6b@quill.bollow.ch> References: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> <20130620174528.6fa0ea6b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thanks, Norbert, for your clear and informative responses. The goal of WisdomTF is commendable although (if the experience on this list were to be of any lesson) the task might be more daunting to reach consensus on what's good (what works and to what extent) and what's not in terms of policy than it is with technical standards and IETF. Nonetheless, there might be proven good experiences, "best practices" and critical lessons learned, and it will go a long way to have a place, or a couple of them, globally recognized as places where one can get robust, state-of-the-art information or knowledge or experience on the critical policy issues of the day. While I'm at it, it just occurs to me that one of the main challenges will first be to distinguish the question "what works?" (or "what's good?" in that sense) from these questions "what's good? what's better? what's best?" in the normative sense, although the normative dimension is also crucial in policy-making. I would think whenever relevant, necessary and feasible, the normative layer should be addressed upfront and set aside. That may be the case for things that have not been tried anywhere we know of, which might be rare. But even for those that have already been tried in various contexts with varying results, one might want to identify those results that would be worth pursuing, which may be both a normative and a pragmatic thing. In any case, the monitoring and feedback aspect of this effort will be crucial as that will be the ultimate sanction to what does work. Just thinking aloud (or rather with my fingers) before my morning coffee or substitute thereof. At any rate, it would be very interesting to see whether the IETF-type of culture can be created in the policy arena regarding discussion of the issues and decision-making. I hope you'll soon get that opportunity to keep this rolling. Best, Mawaki On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Hi Mawaki - good to hear from you! > > Mawaki Chango wrote: > > > I am not sure I clearly understand the purpose of the Wisdom Task > > Force proposal you referred to in your message below. > > To facility good, globally coordinated governance for global issues. > > One way that WisdomTF can be described is “an IETF for global policy > issues”. IETF develops technical specifications which are implemented > by the people who develop the software and hardware that makes the > Internet work. WisdomTF will develop recommendation documents on > global public policy matters, with the aim of informing national > parliamentary decision-making processes. > > > Is it guidance > > for members of parliaments and their staff when developing policies? > > Yes, and for members of the media and the general public too. > > I hope that eventually it will be political suicide to simply ignore > the insights and recommendations of the relevant WisdomTF documents. :-) > > > Is there a geographical scope implied (eg, EU)? > > The intended geographical scope is global, since global concerns > should really be addressed globally, and everyone worldwide (or at > least everyone who is able to access the Internet and to communicate > internationally, in writing) must be enabled to take part in the > deliberative processes. > > > Is there a > > connection with policy research and evaluation, in terms or methods > > or otherwise? > > The idea is that WisdomTF output documents (which are intended to be > input documents for national political process) should inform not only > about possible policy choices, but also about what is known about the > likely results of those policy choices. Hence where available, formal > outputs of policy research and evaluation should certainly be > referenced. > > > What's next? > > In the absence of funding, right now the idea is dormant waiting for me > to get to a point of having some time available for working on it... > > > Will a (multistakeholder) group be formed to follow-up on this? > > Ideally yes - I'm not sure yet though how to achieve that. > > > How did you come up with the list of WGs? > > No real process -- just pondering about what are some important > topics for which it might be relatively easy to reach critical mass. > > Greetings, > Norbert > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > > > Andrea Glorioso wrote on Mon, 29 Apr 2013: > > > > > > > I wonder whether there is a need to introduce specific > > > > guidelines / methodologies to assess the impact of > > > > Internet-related policies (which I define on the fly as "policies > > > > (including regulation, soft law, research activities) which > > > > either impact on, or are impacted by, the Internet). > > > > > > Sorry that I'm only now getting around to responding to the very > > > important and interesting questions that you're raising... hopefully > > > I'm not too late and the topic is still of interest, > > > > > > > Questions that come to my mind: > > > > > > > > - is the Internet an important enough phenomenon / infrastructure > > > > to justify having specific methodologies to assess the impact of > > > > policies on it, and its impact on policies? > > > > > > I would respond to this question with a clear yes, but more > > > importantly, it is becoming increasingly impossible to separate the > > > Internet, and what it enables, from what used to be the offline > > > world but isn't so offline anymore. > > > > > > I would argue that this causes significant aspects of the > > > traditional ways of thinking about public policy and about the > > > corresponding legal frameworks to be not suitable for todays's > > > world. Many if the underlying heuristics and assumptions are not > > > valid anymore. > > > > > > > - are existing methodologies (e.g. concerning the impact on ICT or > > > > telecommunication networks generically) enough to cover this need? > > > > > > No... those methodologies may be less badly outdated than what > > > experts on legal systems (the lawyers) learn during their studies, > > > but the world is changing so quickly nowadays that all existing > > > methodologies are already outdated by the time that they're > > > recognized as “existing methodologies”. What we now need is > > > analytical methods that are updated, through an appropriate > > > multistakeholder process, in real time, as the world is changing. > > > > > > > - which kind of basic questions should one ask when assessing the > > > > impact of Internet-related policies? > > > > > > The same kind of questions that have always been appropriate to ask > > > for proposals of any kind: What is the intended effect? What is the > > > cost? How likely is it that the intended effect will be achieved? > > > What are the risks in regard to negative side-effects? How can > > > those risks be managed or mitigated? What is the potential cost of > > > mitigation measures that may be needed? What negative side-effects > > > are likely to remain after any mitigation measures? Is, in view of > > > all of the risks and costs, the proposed measure worthwhile? > > > > > > > - which kind of methodological tools (and from which disciplines) > > > > should one consider when performing such impact assessment? > > > > > > I find the "logical thinking process" tools of Goldratt's Theory of > > > Constraints to be highly helpful for all kinds of analysis and > > > deliberation in complex systemic contexts. See e.g.: > > > > > > H. William Dettmer: > > > The Logical Thinking process. A Systems Approach to Complex > > > Problem Solving. > > > Milwaukee, WI, USA, 2007 (Quality Press) > > > ISBN 978-0-87389-723-5 > > > > > > On top of that I believe that we need an international > > > multistakeholder process to develop more specific analysis > > > methodologies, to keep them up to date, and to apply them to > > > current policy challenges. That is a primary objective of the > > > Wisdom Task Force proposal http://WisdomTaskForce.org/RFB/1 > > > > > > Greetings, > > > Norbert > > > > > > -- > > > Recommendations for effective and contructive participation in IGC: > > > 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the > > > person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you > > > accept > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Fri Jun 21 09:29:43 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 15:29:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN briefing in Brussels Message-ID: Dear all, I don't think I saw this announcement passing here - apologies otherwise. In case you happen to be in Brussels on 25 June 2013, you might want to attend the ICANN Brussels Briefing, co-organised by ICANN and CENTR. Please note that the European Commission is *not* among the organisers (although Linda Corugedo Steneberg, Director responsible for Internet governance, will speak) so any questions / comments, as well as requests for registrations, should be addressed to the ICANN office in Brussels (Renate DeWulf at renate.dewulf at icann.org). Agenda below and further informations at https://myicann.org/event/stakeholder-engagement/icann-brussels-briefing: Title: ICANN Brussels Briefing Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 - 10:00 to 15:00 Where: Brussels, Belgium Calendar/Source: Stakeholder Engagement BRUSSELS BRIEFING; 25TH JUNE; SILKEN BERALYMONT HOTEL Agenda 10.00 Registration and Coffee 10.15 Fadi Chehade Keynote 11.00 The IG Landscape (Tarek Kamel) 11.45 The Wider Internet Ecosystem • Linda Corugedo-Steneberg (European Commission) • Peter Van Roste (CENTR) 12.30 Discussion 12.45 Networking Lunch 13.30 ICANN Strategic Plan – Your Role (Sally Costerton) 14.00 All you wanted to know about gTLDs… (Christine Willett) 15.00 Close The Briefing is being coordinated by ICANN in conjunction with CENTR. Please register by e-mailing Renate DeWulf at renate.dewulf at icann.org by 21st June. SILKEN BERALYMONT HOTEL 11-19, Boulevard Charlemagne 1000 Brussels - Belgium --- Best, Andrea -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Jun 21 13:34:32 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 13:34:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?=5BNew_post=5D_In_an_Internetworked_World_?= =?UTF-8?Q?No_One_Is_=E2=80=9CForeign=E2=80=9D?= Message-ID: <0b9d01ce6ea5$9f2c68b0$dd853a10$@gmail.com> Respond to this post by replying above this line New post on Gurstein's Community Informatics In an Internetworked World No One Is “Foreign” by Michael Gurstein As everyone knows there have been some startling and shocking revelations concerning the surveillance activities of the USA's NSA. This has occasioned considerable to-ing and fro-ing from the US Executive Office, from the major Internet corporations implicated in these revelations, and from various elements of civil society. To an equally astonishing and disturbing degree much of this to-ing and fro-ing has centred around whether the rights of Americans have been assaulted. Watching these discussions unfold including from US colleagues in civil society, it has been interesting how a fine bright line has been drawn between the rights of citizens and residents of the USA and everyone else. The argument appears to be that while the rights of Americans are somehow sacrosanct--protected by among other things the US constitution and duly constituted legislation, foreigners i.e. everyone else in the world have no rights--are "fair game" for whatever actions the NSA or whoever chooses to invoke. As a non-USAian watching all of this unfold I've been equally astonished and horrified that otherwise perfectly sane and reasonable people who pop up in all the right places often saying useful things internationally could be so tone deaf when dealing with a real issue with global ramifications. As I've been thinking about this I haven't been quite sure why the terminology of Americans "good"--"foreigners" "suspicious" should grate so much. We (being those of the non-USAian persuasion) are so used to listening to cultural messages coming from the US including via movies, television, music and so on that at some unconscious cultural level "we are all Americans now". So when the divide between those placing themselves under the shading protection of the US constitution and everyone else is so actively and frequently expressed, the real divide is made even clearer and more explicit. However, as we all know as well, the Internet as a communications and expressive platform knows few if any boundaries. While on the Internet of course, some are more equal than others the specific nationality as framed by boundaries and constitutions and legislation is left somewhere in the background only to be invoked at times of crisis or system failure. And that is why the language and conceptualization of the US vs. foreigners seems so odd and unsettling since on the Internet no one is a "foreigner" (and no one is a "national" except possibly of the nation of the Internet and its netizens/"citizens"... This isn't to idealize the Internet as a place without boundaries but rather to state the obvious, I'm able to and am frequently active in being in my home in Canada or with my friends in Brazil or with business colleagues in India instantaneously and seamlessly from anywhere I happen to be able to connect--no passports, no jurisdictional entanglements, in many cases no authorities evidently hovering in the background. So when something like Ed Snowden's revelations re-arrange again the Internet world around boundaries--around "us" and "them", "citizens" and "foreigners" it feels, well, so 20th century. And to go on a wee bit--what is equally unsettling is the knowledge again that we (foreigners) have gleaned from Ed Snowden's revelations that the marginal and largely notional "protections" that distance and boundaries have up to now offered to us from the over-weaning and often absurdist actions by US authorities can now be seen as having been finally and irrevocably "disappeared"; and while we may be "foreigners" from the perspective of "rights", we are very much not foreigners from the perspective of being somehow subject to the actions of US authorities wherever we may or whatever we may be doing anywhere in the world. And of course, this is the case not simply for the usual ("legitimate") suspects but also for ordinary citizens, businesses, governments, whatever--since the power of the Internet and the facility with which its depth of penetration has been projected almost universally has meant that the power wielded by those authorities is now global in scope and reach and essentially unrestricted in its actions. Thus in the sense of being subjects to US authority (or the authority of anyone with the wealth and facility to effectively use these tools--recent days have seen reports of similar actions by spooks in India and Brazil) no one is now a "foreigner"--in that area we are all equal and equally powerless. So, if we are all -- USAians and everyone else now subjects of the omnipresent eyes, ears and capacities for actions at a distance of the Internet and ICTs in general; where are the structures and rules, procedures, legislative mechanisms that would allow all of us--citizens of an Internet-enabled world to hold those wielding this authority to some measure of accountability and transparency. Without those mechanisms and those rules and procedures--we all and in this we must include all of us USAians and the like--will be the objects of control and subject of the authority of a future SurveillanceState without recourse or appeal. The time to recognize that we are all equally citizens of the Internet world (and equally foreigners in the boundary burdened world where you need a passport to be on the Internet) and to get about the job of building the governance institutions for the world that we are all living in and put paid to those institutions that govern the world that we are in the process of out-growing. Michael Gurstein | June 21, 2013 at 09:38 | Tags: Internet Governance | Categories: Canadian ICT policy, Civil Society, Community Informatics, Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pJQl5-cb Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/in-an-internetworked-world-no-one-is-foreign/ Thanks for flying with WordPress.com !DSPAM:2676,51c481a9201486844489858! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Jun 21 14:45:39 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:45:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?=5BNew_post=5D_In_an_Internetwo?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?rked_World_No_One_Is_=93Foreign=94?= In-Reply-To: <0b9d01ce6ea5$9f2c68b0$dd853a10$@gmail.com> References: <0b9d01ce6ea5$9f2c68b0$dd853a10$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Intersting piece, thanks for sharing On 21/06/2013, michael gurstein wrote: > > > > Respond to this post by replying above this line > > > > > > > > > > > New post on Gurstein's Community Informatics > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In an Internetworked World No One Is “Foreign” > > > by Michael Gurstein > > As everyone knows there have been some startling and shocking revelations > concerning the surveillance activities of the USA's NSA. This has > occasioned considerable to-ing and fro-ing from the US Executive Office, > from the major Internet corporations implicated in these revelations, and > from various elements of civil society. > > To an equally astonishing and disturbing degree much of this to-ing and > fro-ing has centred around whether the rights of Americans have been > assaulted. Watching these discussions unfold including from US colleagues > in civil society, it has been interesting how a fine bright line has been > drawn between the rights of citizens and residents of the USA and everyone > else. The argument appears to be that while the rights of Americans are > somehow sacrosanct--protected by among other things the US constitution and > duly constituted legislation, foreigners i.e. everyone else in the world > have no rights--are "fair game" for whatever actions the NSA or whoever > chooses to invoke. > > As a non-USAian watching all of this unfold I've been equally astonished and > horrified that otherwise perfectly sane and reasonable people who pop up in > all the right places often saying useful things internationally could be so > tone deaf when dealing with a real issue with global ramifications. > > As I've been thinking about this I haven't been quite sure why the > terminology of Americans "good"--"foreigners" "suspicious" should grate so > much. > > We (being those of the non-USAian persuasion) are so used to listening to > cultural messages coming from the US including via movies, television, music > and so on that at some unconscious cultural level "we are all Americans > now". So when the divide between those placing themselves under the shading > protection of the US constitution and everyone else is so actively and > frequently expressed, the real divide is made even clearer and more > explicit. > > However, as we all know as well, the Internet as a communications and > expressive platform knows few if any boundaries. While on the Internet of > course, some are more equal than others the specific nationality as framed > by boundaries and constitutions and legislation is left somewhere in the > background only to be invoked at times of crisis or system failure. > > And that is why the language and conceptualization of the US vs. foreigners > seems so odd and unsettling since on the Internet no one is a "foreigner" > (and no one is a "national" except possibly of the nation of the Internet > and its netizens/"citizens"... > > This isn't to idealize the Internet as a place without boundaries but > rather to state the obvious, I'm able to and am frequently active in being > in my home in Canada or with my friends in Brazil or with business > colleagues in India instantaneously and seamlessly from anywhere I happen to > be able to connect--no passports, no jurisdictional entanglements, in many > cases no authorities evidently hovering in the background. So when something > like Ed Snowden's revelations re-arrange again the Internet world around > boundaries--around "us" and "them", "citizens" and "foreigners" it feels, > well, so 20th century. > > And to go on a wee bit--what is equally unsettling is the knowledge again > that we (foreigners) have gleaned from Ed Snowden's revelations that the > marginal and largely notional "protections" that distance and boundaries > have up to now offered to us from the over-weaning and often absurdist > actions by US authorities can now be seen as having been finally and > irrevocably "disappeared"; and while we may be "foreigners" from the > perspective of "rights", we are very much not foreigners from the > perspective of being somehow subject to the actions of US authorities > wherever we may or whatever we may be doing anywhere in the world. > > And of course, this is the case not simply for the usual ("legitimate") > suspects but also for ordinary citizens, businesses, governments, > whatever--since the power of the Internet and the facility with which its > depth of penetration has been projected almost universally has meant that > the power wielded by those authorities is now global in scope and reach and > essentially unrestricted in its actions. Thus in the sense of being subjects > to US authority (or the authority of anyone with the wealth and facility to > effectively use these tools--recent days have seen reports of similar > actions by spooks in India and Brazil) no one is now a "foreigner"--in that > area we are all equal and equally powerless. > > So, if we are all -- USAians and everyone else now subjects of the > omnipresent eyes, ears and capacities for actions at a distance of the > Internet and ICTs in general; where are the structures and rules, > procedures, legislative mechanisms that would allow all of us--citizens of > an Internet-enabled world to hold those wielding this authority to some > measure of accountability and transparency. > > Without those mechanisms and those rules and procedures--we all and in this > we must include all of us USAians and the like--will be the objects of > control and subject of the authority of a future SurveillanceState without > recourse or appeal. The time to recognize that we are all equally citizens > of the Internet world (and equally foreigners in the boundary burdened world > where you need a passport to be on the Internet) and to get about the job of > building the governance institutions for the world that we are all living in > and put paid to those institutions that govern the world that we are in the > process of out-growing. > > Michael Gurstein | June > 21, 2013 at 09:38 | Tags: > Internet Governance > | Categories: Canadian ICT > policy, Civil Society, > Community Informatics, > Uncategorized | URL: > http://wp.me/pJQl5-cb > > > > Comment > > > > See all comments > > > > Like > > > > > Unsubscribe or change your email settings at > > Manage Subscriptions. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/06/21/in-an-internetworked-world-no-one-is-foreign/ > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for flying with WordPress.com > > > > !DSPAM:2676,51c481a9201486844489858! > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 09:05:46 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:05:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred problem (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 eyes" group) and of course the actions of more traditional state actor surveillance players such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of this is requiring of some sort of global response and presumably in the ideal world (and as presumed goals for ourselves) the development of some sort of global means and mechanisms, tools and institutions for the privacy protection of all of us "foreigners"/citizens of the Universal States of the Internetworked. (USI for short) :) M From: webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anne Jellema Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:57 AM To: Carolina Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; Berkman Friends; redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br Subject: Re: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil Coming on top of revelations about the UK, India, Finland and Germany - this really underscores the global nature of the problem. Nothing that Frank LaRue didn't already warn about, but interesting that so much more is starting to come to light. Because Tim B-L is a prominent name in the UK we're likely to get asked for media comment on the UK spying revelations. This will provide another opportunity to reinforce key messages agreed on these lists earlier. Also, if any UK-based organisations want to work on a coordinated response, please let me know, we'd be keen to contribute. Cheers Anne On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carolina wrote: And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. More on the "mosaic" project at: (In Portuguese) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-in ternet,1044500,0.htm I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... Carol Sent from my iPhone -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Web We Want working group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 09:17:19 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:17:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> References: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just to add something new, the Brazilian Minister of Defense, in an interview to Folha de São Paulo, pointed out the PRISM case as another reason for the country to keep investing in cyber offensive and defensive capabilities. Honestly, those things are only indirectly related. But that is what one could expect: that some state agencies and some private companies will seize this opportunity to spread the idea that cybersecurity is only a matter of buying the appropriate stuff. On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred problem > (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 eyes" group) and > of course the actions of more traditional state actor surveillance players > such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of this is requiring of some > sort of global response and presumably in the ideal world (and as presumed > goals for ourselves) the development of some sort of global means and > mechanisms, tools and institutions for the privacy protection of all of us > "foreigners"/citizens of the Universal States of the Internetworked… (USI > for short) :)**** > > ** ** > > M**** > > ** ** > > *From:* webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] *On > Behalf Of *Anne Jellema > *Sent:* Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:57 AM > *To:* Carolina > *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com; < > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Berkman Friends; > redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br > *Subject:* Re: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil**** > > ** ** > > Coming on top of revelations about the UK, India, Finland and Germany - > this really underscores the global nature of the problem. Nothing that > Frank LaRue didn't already warn about, but interesting that so much more is > starting to come to light. **** > > ** ** > > Because Tim B-L is a prominent name in the UK we're likely to get asked > for media comment on the UK spying revelations. This will provide another > opportunity to reinforce key messages agreed on these lists earlier. Also, > if any UK-based organisations want to work on a coordinated response, > please let me know, we'd be keen to contribute. **** > > ** ** > > Cheers**** > > Anne**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carolina > wrote:**** > > And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian > "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute > surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. > More on the "mosaic" project at:**** > > ** ** > > (In Portuguese)**** > > > > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm > **** > > **** > > I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet...**** > > ** ** > > Carol**** > > > Sent from my iPhone**** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > ** ** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Web We Want working group" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From carolina.rossini at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 09:33:08 2013 From: carolina.rossini at gmail.com (Carolina Rossini) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 09:33:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: [Marcocivil] Pronunciamento da Presidenta: janela de oportunidade In-Reply-To: <1371860382.63719.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1371860382.63719.YahooMailAndroidMobile@web161704.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: estive com o Molon essa semana passada e ele disse que um dos problemas ainda eh a oposicao do PMDB toda terca-feira os lideres de partido se reunem para decidir a pauda de votacao da semana... so temos duas oportunidades...pois a partir de 17 de julho o congresso entra em recesso se o Marco civil for colocado como pauta prioritaria do governo = presidencia, pode ser que role bjs 2013/6/21 Paulo Rená > Pessoal, > > Tenho plena convicção de que o pronunciamento da Presidenta abre uma > janela de oportunidade para a aprovação do Marco Civil. > > A Internet se mostrou uma ferramenta social essencial para a mobilização > nas ruas. Alguém com contato precisa colocar nosso grupo entre aqueles > cujos representantes serão recebidos para pensar as mudanças. O argumento é > o de que é preciso garantir em lei a liberdade de comunicação que permitiu > essa intensificação da democracia no Brasil. > > Acho que temos que aproveitar esse momento e rápido. > > ------------------------------ > * From: * Carolina ; > * To: * ; ; **< > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Berkman Friends < > berkmanfriends at eon.law.harvard.edu>; ; < > marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br>; > * Subject: * [Marcocivil] Surveillance discovered in Brazil > * Sent: * Thu, Jun 20, 2013 7:27:18 PM > > And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian > "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute > surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. > More on the "mosaic" project at: > > (In Portuguese) > > > http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm > > I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... > > Carol > > Sent from my iPhone > > > _______________________________________________ > Lista de email Marcocivil > Marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br > http://listas.ensol.org.br/listinfo.cgi/marcocivil-ensol.org.br > Descadastrar: envie email a Marcocivil-unsubscribe at listas.ensol.org.br > > -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 10:42:42 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 10:42:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> References: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: CC list trimmed On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred problem > (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 eyes" group) and > of course the actions of more traditional state actor surveillance players > such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of this is requiring of some > sort of global response and presumably in the ideal world (and as presumed > goals for ourselves) the development of some sort of global means and > mechanisms, tools and institutions for the privacy protection of all of us > "foreigners"/citizens of the Universal States of the Internetworked… (USI > for short) :) It's called ipsec OR "encryption". We could spend a lot of time and money developing an int'l Treaty or Framework (or whatever we want to call it), but the bottom line is that if you don't want your traffic snooped, you'd better use some strong encryption. TCP/IP is akin to sending a postcard, not a sealed, certified letter. Regards, McTim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sat Jun 22 10:46:36 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:16:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: And having it before the "enemy" - which may be another corporation, country, political party, ad infinitum. And they may have a "better" intel (pardon the pun) device so its natural we'd want to upgrade paying a couple of mil every few months. Reminds me of the classic Star Trek "Arsenal of Freedom" - where this alien species in the business of weapon trade sells to both sides of warring factions. Finally their own weapons get so powerful and sophisticated that they not only wipe out their creators, they also "hard sell" themseleves to visitors (by effectively holding the visitors captive and calling it a 'demonstration'). ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Freedom -C On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Diego Rafael Canabarro < diegocanabarro at gmail.com> wrote: > Just to add something new, the Brazilian Minister of Defense, in an > interview to Folha de São Paulo, pointed out the PRISM case as another > reason for the country to keep investing in cyber offensive and defensive > capabilities. Honestly, those things are only indirectly related. But that > is what one could expect: that some state agencies and some private > companies will seize this opportunity to spread the idea that cybersecurity > is only a matter of buying the appropriate stuff. > > > On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > >> What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred problem >> (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 eyes" group) and >> of course the actions of more traditional state actor surveillance players >> such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of this is requiring of some >> sort of global response and presumably in the ideal world (and as presumed >> goals for ourselves) the development of some sort of global means and >> mechanisms, tools and institutions for the privacy protection of all of us >> "foreigners"/citizens of the Universal States of the Internetworked… (USI >> for short) :)**** >> >> ** ** >> >> M**** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* webwewant at googlegroups.com [mailto:webwewant at googlegroups.com] *On >> Behalf Of *Anne Jellema >> *Sent:* Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:57 AM >> *To:* Carolina >> *Cc:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com; < >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>; Berkman Friends; >> redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br >> *Subject:* Re: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Coming on top of revelations about the UK, India, Finland and Germany - >> this really underscores the global nature of the problem. Nothing that >> Frank LaRue didn't already warn about, but interesting that so much more is >> starting to come to light. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Because Tim B-L is a prominent name in the UK we're likely to get asked >> for media comment on the UK spying revelations. This will provide another >> opportunity to reinforce key messages agreed on these lists earlier. Also, >> if any UK-based organisations want to work on a coordinated response, >> please let me know, we'd be keen to contribute. **** >> >> ** ** >> >> Cheers**** >> >> Anne**** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Carolina >> wrote:**** >> >> And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian >> "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute >> surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. >> More on the "mosaic" project at:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> (In Portuguese)**** >> >> >> >> http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm >> **** >> >> **** >> >> I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet...**** >> >> ** ** >> >> Carol**** >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone**** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> **** >> >> ** ** >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Web We Want working group" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to webwewant at googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> **** >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Diego R. Canabarro > http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 > > -- > diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br > diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu > MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com > Skype: diegocanabarro > Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) > -- > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 23 08:54:14 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 08:54:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: <017001ce6f49$3c2b27c0$b4817740$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <03c201ce7010$cb996b20$62cc4160$@gmail.com> The wise choice I think is probably to do both. M -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; michael gurstein Cc: Anne Jellema; Carolina Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [webwewant] Surveillance discovered in Brazil CC list trimmed On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > What seems to be rapidly emerging is that this is a multi-centred > problem (you didn't mention Canada and the other members of the "5 > eyes" group) and of course the actions of more traditional state actor > surveillance players such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia etc.. All of > this is requiring of some sort of global response and presumably in > the ideal world (and as presumed goals for ourselves) the development > of some sort of global means and mechanisms, tools and institutions > for the privacy protection of all of us "foreigners"/citizens of the > Universal States of the Internetworked. (USI for short) :) It's called ipsec OR "encryption". We could spend a lot of time and money developing an int'l Treaty or Framework (or whatever we want to call it), but the bottom line is that if you don't want your traffic snooped, you'd better use some strong encryption. TCP/IP is akin to sending a postcard, not a sealed, certified letter. Regards, McTim -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Jun 23 09:22:33 2013 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2013 09:22:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: [Dewayne-Net] WikiLeaks Statement On Edward Snowden's Exit In-Reply-To: <2D17D5F2-DE66-4DC1-8268-3E90F54367C5@warpspeed.com> References: <2D17D5F2-DE66-4DC1-8268-3E90F54367C5@warpspeed.com> Message-ID: <03fe01ce7014$bf845260$3e8cf720$@gmail.com> -----Original Message----- From: dewayne-net at warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net at warpspeed.com] On Behalf Of Dewayne Hendricks Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 8:54 AM To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net Subject: [Dewayne-Net] WikiLeaks Statement On Edward Snowden's Exit WikiLeaks Statement On Edward Snowden's Exit From Hong Kong Sunday June 23, 2013 13:00 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Mr Edward Snowden, the American whistleblower who exposed evidence of a global surveillance regime conducted by US and UK intelligence agencies, has left Hong Kong legally. He is bound for a democratic nation via a safe route for the purposes of asylum, and is being escorted by diplomats and legal advisors from WikiLeaks. Mr Snowden requested that WikiLeaks use its legal expertise and experience to secure his safety. Once Mr Snowden arrives at his final destination his request will be formally processed. Former Spanish Judge Mr Baltasar Garzon, legal director of Wikileaks and lawyer for Julian Assange has made the following statement: "The WikiLeaks legal team and I are interested in preserving Mr Snowden's rights and protecting him as a person. What is being done to Mr Snowden and to Mr Julian Assange - for making or facilitating disclosures in the public interest - is an assault against the people". Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Jun 24 08:29:55 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:59:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas ', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas . Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marie.georges at noos.fr Mon Jun 24 09:39:03 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:39:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Yes Parminder and others Yes the Patriot Act target all "US enterprises", where ever then operate.... Some other ideas... Is it "fair" that a State "cares" (accesses or other) about data which have no other territorial link than passing through it ? without any legal cooperation with the State which has the territorial link with the activity at stake? Would it be interesting to use those parts of the following commercial cases (which are still not satisfactory from other angles than those quoted bellow) - Years ago (in the 90s), in the case of Galileo (a System for Information Reservation "SIR") which servers were transferred from UK to East of US, along with the data territory location theory, US asked that no flight to Cuba could be on the server (because it was forbidden to fly from USA to to Cuba...). Once it was established that no flight from US to Cuba could be matter of seat's reservation , the US government accepted that data on flights to Cuba (from elsewhere than USA) could remain in the servers (with the aim of air companies and agencies offering seats reservation from elsewhere than USA)....... At that time there was no question about getting PNR's data by US...and further when US requested the PNR data, EU negotiated that any how the data on persons not going to USA could not be accessed from EU Air companies through System of air reservation. It also asked that the data on persons going to US should be pushed by the system to US authorities and not be pulled (directly accessed to by those authorities) - After the SWIFT case was revealed, EU took back to a european country the servers/back up on which are processed the financial transactions not having a link with US There is a "legal" activity on electronic war going on around US and NATO...http://www.nowandfutures.com/large/Tallinn-Manual-on-the-International-Law-Applicable-to-Cyber-Warfare-Draft-.pdf Not yet any such international initiative on world electronic surveillance nor on drones (either for surveillance or to kill... We cannot go on like this... Marie Le 24 juin 2013 à 14:29, parminder a écrit : > > > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... > > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 24 09:45:31 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 06:45:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130624134531.GA18764@hserus.net> Marie GEORGES [24/06/13 15:39 +0200]: >Some other ideas... >Is it "fair" that a State "cares" (accesses or other) about data which >have no other territorial link than passing through it ? without any >legal cooperation with the State which has the territorial link with the >activity at stake? A long standing principle of sovereignity is that any activity on a country's soil / within its borders is subject to that country's law. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marie.georges at noos.fr Mon Jun 24 10:16:37 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:16:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130624134531.GA18764@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <20130624134531.GA18764@hserus.net> Message-ID: <55AE78F6-084D-4A1E-B814-030D5109FE23@noos.fr> OF course and there are many other long standing principles relating to applicable law and I showed you one case in which US accepted not to apply the "sovereignty" principle to data on its territory because the activity at stake, except "processing of related data", had nothing to do with US Other example, even if the Data Protection law is a "public order" law in EU, EU decided not to apply the DP directive of 1995 to data only "in transit" .... Le 24 juin 2013 à 15:45, Suresh Ramasubramanian a écrit : > Marie GEORGES [24/06/13 15:39 +0200]: >> Some other ideas... >> Is it "fair" that a State "cares" (accesses or other) about data which >> have no other territorial link than passing through it ? without any >> legal cooperation with the State which has the territorial link with the >> activity at stake? > > A long standing principle of sovereignity is that any activity on a > country's soil / within its borders is subject to that country's law. > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 24 10:20:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 07:20:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <55AE78F6-084D-4A1E-B814-030D5109FE23@noos.fr> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <20130624134531.GA18764@hserus.net> <55AE78F6-084D-4A1E-B814-030D5109FE23@noos.fr> Message-ID: <20130624142029.GG19796@hserus.net> Any such exemption would be explicitly granted and documented. To my knowledge such an exemption doesn't seem to exist though. I would love to be proved wrong. Marie GEORGES [24/06/13 16:16 +0200]: >OF course and there are many other long standing principles relating to >applicable law and I showed you one case in which US accepted not to apply >the "sovereignty" principle to data on its territory because the activity >at stake, except "processing of related data", had nothing to do with US > >Other example, even if the Data Protection law is a "public order" law in >EU, EU decided not to apply the DP directive of 1995 to data only "in >transit" .... -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 10:45:01 2013 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 09:45:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130624142029.GG19796@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <20130624134531.GA18764@hserus.net> <55AE78F6-084D-4A1E-B814-030D5109FE23@noos.fr> <20130624142029.GG19796@hserus.net> Message-ID: Although this certainly is a complex issue, shouldn't diplomatic immunity be extended to e-documents in similar contexts? Jovan Kurbalija explains it better than I can in the blog post 'Do e-mail and e-documents have diplomatic protection?' http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/do-e-mail-and-e-documents-have-diplomatic-protection Excerpt: The short answer is YES! A bit longer answer could be prompted by questions… why, over the last few days, have we not heard news about ambassadors presenting demarches in Washington, with reasonable doubts whether their e-mails have been intercepted? Or… the news that some national legal adviser, with the hope to have his/her name written in legal history, is preparing a court case against the USA on the grounds of unauthorised access to diplomatic documents stored on Google Drive? In these examples I have mentioned the USA because of the recent PRISM outrage and the concentration of the Internet industry in the USA. But, in principle, any country could be responsible for (not) observing diplomatic e-immunities. One of the early incidents involving e-immunities dates back to 2002, when a local Turkish newspaper intercepted and published an e-mail sent by the European Union (EU) delegation in Turkey. The EU demanded... Ginger (Virginia) Paque IG Programmes, DiploFoundation *The latest from Diplo...* *Upcoming online courses in Internet governance: Master in Contemporary Diplomacy with Internet Governance specialisation, Critical Internet Resources and Infrastructure, ICT Policy and Strategic Planning, and Privacy and Personal Data Protection. Read more and apply at http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses* ** ** On 24 June 2013 09:20, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Any such exemption would be explicitly granted and documented. To my > knowledge such an exemption doesn't seem to exist though. I would love to > be proved wrong. > > Marie GEORGES [24/06/13 16:16 +0200]: > >> OF course and there are many other long standing principles relating to >> applicable law and I showed you one case in which US accepted not to apply >> the "sovereignty" principle to data on its territory because the activity >> at stake, except "processing of related data", had nothing to do with US >> >> Other example, even if the Data Protection law is a "public order" law in >> EU, EU decided not to apply the DP directive of 1995 to data only "in >> transit" .... >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jun 24 17:13:30 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:13:30 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political agreement with them. In either case, their standing as responsible global corporations has suffered significantly and justifiably. Ian Peter From: parminder Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 10:29 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From declan at well.com Mon Jun 24 17:42:56 2013 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 14:42:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> Message-ID: <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political agreement with them. The fact that you're unaware of the companies challenging these requests in court should not lead you to -- falsely -- assume they have not. I disclosed* last month, pre-NSA spying flap, that Google is litigating two cases against the U.S. government, one in NYC and one in SF, over national security requests. Google has additionally since squared off against the DOJ before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yahoo also mounted** a legal challenge before the FISC. Google, Yahoo, Facebook (from memory) have insisted the police get warrants for archived email, even though the law does not require police to do so. When DOJ sent Google a subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court. These companies are lobbying Congress to enact a law to increase privacy standards, including mobile privacy. Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew of an order it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF and ACLU. Facebook fought the state of Virginia. Amazon.com fought the DOJ in court in Wisconsin and fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court in Seattle. This is the opposite of the approach taken by telecommunications providers including AT&T and Verizon.*** None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) -Declan --- * http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/justice-department-tries-to-force-google-to-hand-over-user-data/ ** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 *** http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 17:47:44 2013 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:47:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political agreement with them. > > > None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) Well said Declan. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Mon Jun 24 18:51:48 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 04:21:48 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> Message-ID: <13f7862b972.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Had to be said, thanks declan And parminder, they don't owe you an answer, sorry --srs (htc one x) On 25 June 2013 3:12:56 AM Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually > challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my > knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of > the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political > agreement with them. > > > The fact that you're unaware of the companies challenging these requests in > court should not lead you to -- falsely -- assume they have not. > > I disclosed* last month, pre-NSA spying flap, that Google is litigating two > cases against the U.S. government, one in NYC and one in SF, over national > security requests. Google has additionally since squared off against the > DOJ before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yahoo also > mounted** a legal challenge before the FISC. Google, Yahoo, Facebook (from > memory) have insisted the police get warrants for archived email, even > though the law does not require police to do so. When DOJ sent Google a > subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court. These companies are > lobbying Congress to enact a law to increase privacy standards, including > mobile privacy. > > Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew of > an order it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF and > ACLU. Facebook fought the state of Virginia. Amazon.com fought the DOJ in > court in Wisconsin and fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court in > Seattle. > > This is the opposite of the approach taken by telecommunications providers > including AT&T and Verizon.*** > > None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone > said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux > Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) > > -Declan > > --- > > * > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/justice-department-tries-to-force-google-to-hand-over-user-data/ > ** > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 > *** > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/ > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Mon Jun 24 19:15:31 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:15:31 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> Message-ID: <02a701ce7130$c072c900$41585b00$@jstyre.com> Oddly, Google's motion in FISC isn't on FISC's public docket, only ours and ACLU's. But then, FISC isn't used to having a public docket, it isn't exactly real time such as with PACER. (I've seen Google's motion, I know it exists, it just hasn't been docketed yet.) http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html Declan, did you take that pic of AT&T's Folsom St. facility in the last article you linked? I think one has to actually see the building in person to realize just how menacing it is, but that is a pretty good shot of it. '-) -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 2:43 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Ian Peter > Cc: parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or > its legal ownership > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged in court > any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they did not. This > suggests that either they were too scared of the government to challenge the rulings, > or they were in political agreement with them. > > > The fact that you're unaware of the companies challenging these requests in court > should not lead you to -- falsely -- assume they have not. > > I disclosed* last month, pre-NSA spying flap, that Google is litigating two cases > against the U.S. government, one in NYC and one in SF, over national security > requests. Google has additionally since squared off against the DOJ before the Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yahoo also mounted** a legal challenge before the > FISC. Google, Yahoo, Facebook (from memory) have insisted the police get warrants for > archived email, even though the law does not require police to do so. When DOJ sent > Google a subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court. These companies are > lobbying Congress to enact a law to increase privacy standards, including mobile > privacy. > > Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew of an order > it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF and ACLU. Facebook > fought the state of Virginia. Amazon.com fought the DOJ in court in Wisconsin and > fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court in Seattle. > > This is the opposite of the approach taken by telecommunications providers including > AT&T and Verizon.*** > > None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone said: "To > my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. This suggests > you are in political agreement with them?" :) > > -Declan > > --- > > * http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/justice-department-tries-to-force- > google-to-hand-over-user-data/ > ** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech- > companies-in-data-bind.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 > *** http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t- > verizon-never-denied-it/ > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Mon Jun 24 19:17:48 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 19:17:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <13f7862b972.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> <13f7862b972.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: Do you folks know any study which shows the ration of "requests *versus *unchallenged compliance" and of "requests *versus *successful challenges"? On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Had to be said, thanks declan > And parminder, they don't owe you an answer, sorry > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > On 25 June 2013 3:12:56 AM Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> > I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually >> challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my >> knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of >> the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political >> agreement with them. >> >> >> The fact that you're unaware of the companies challenging these requests >> in court should not lead you to -- falsely -- assume they have not. >> >> I disclosed* last month, pre-NSA spying flap, that Google is litigating >> two cases against the U.S. government, one in NYC and one in SF, over >> national security requests. Google has additionally since squared off >> against the DOJ before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yahoo >> also mounted** a legal challenge before the FISC. Google, Yahoo, Facebook >> (from memory) have insisted the police get warrants for archived email, >> even though the law does not require police to do so. When DOJ sent Google >> a subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court. These companies are >> lobbying Congress to enact a law to increase privacy standards, including >> mobile privacy. >> >> Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew >> of an order it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF >> and ACLU. Facebook fought the state of Virginia. Amazon.com fought the DOJ >> in court in Wisconsin and fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court >> in Seattle. >> >> This is the opposite of the approach taken by telecommunications >> providers including AT&T and Verizon.*** >> >> None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if >> someone said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the >> Ku Klux Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) >> >> -Declan >> >> --- >> >> * http://news.cnet.com/8301-**13578_3-57587005-38/justice-** >> department-tries-to-force-**google-to-hand-over-user-data/ >> ** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/**06/14/technology/secret-court-** >> ruling-put-tech-companies-in-**data-bind.html?partner=rss&** >> emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 >> *** http://news.cnet.com/8301-**13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-** >> surveillance-retrospective-at-**t-verizon-never-denied-it/ >> >> >> >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Jun 24 19:55:40 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:55:40 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> Message-ID: happy to stand corrected. Thanks for the additional information. -----Original Message----- From: Declan McCullagh Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 7:42 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Ian Peter Cc: parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged > in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they > did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of the government > to challenge the rulings, or they were in political agreement with them. The fact that you're unaware of the companies challenging these requests in court should not lead you to -- falsely -- assume they have not. I disclosed* last month, pre-NSA spying flap, that Google is litigating two cases against the U.S. government, one in NYC and one in SF, over national security requests. Google has additionally since squared off against the DOJ before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Yahoo also mounted** a legal challenge before the FISC. Google, Yahoo, Facebook (from memory) have insisted the police get warrants for archived email, even though the law does not require police to do so. When DOJ sent Google a subpoena for search logs, Google fought it in court. These companies are lobbying Congress to enact a law to increase privacy standards, including mobile privacy. Twitter successfully fought for the ability to notify the Wikileaks crew of an order it received, who then fought it in court with the help of EFF and ACLU. Facebook fought the state of Virginia. Amazon.com fought the DOJ in court in Wisconsin and fought the North Carolina tax collectors in court in Seattle. This is the opposite of the approach taken by telecommunications providers including AT&T and Verizon.*** None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) -Declan --- * http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57587005-38/justice-department-tries-to-force-google-to-hand-over-user-data/ ** http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/technology/secret-court-ruling-put-tech-companies-in-data-bind.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0 *** http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/nsa-surveillance-retrospective-at-t-verizon-never-denied-it/ -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 03:34:59 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:04:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> Message-ID: <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The > answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by > companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that > it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security > Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act > and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is > located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a third party, > including cloud computing services under US civil > (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is > whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" > of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where > the information is physically stored, where the company is > headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is > sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has > jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether > the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of > their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could > imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely > related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, > custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the > data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask >> a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent >> PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to >> believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from >> the fact that there are news reports >> >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for >> different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by >> nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these >> companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated >> with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >> ', its revolving doors >> with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime >> change ideas >> . Facebook >> also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not >> other things in the same region..... >> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data >> with US government extended only to such data that is actually >> located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data >> within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it >> may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but >> still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these >> companies.) >> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually >> resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of >> what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data >> about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside >> the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift >> all their data to servers in other countries that made no such >> demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up >> near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the >> purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake >> of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US >> citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing >> their bottom-lines? >> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there >> can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a >> country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these >> companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? >> >> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >> >> parminder > > > -- > Katitza Rodriguez > International Rights Director > Electronic Frontier Foundation > katitza at eff.org > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 04:24:37 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:54:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism " led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The >> answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by >> companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that >> it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security >> Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act >> and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is >> located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a third party, >> including cloud computing services under US civil >> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is >> whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" >> of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter >> where the information is physically stored, where the company is >> headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is >> sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether >> the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of >> their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could >> imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely >> related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the >> data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European > sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage > of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be > obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... > Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law > perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to > European email could have carried classified information! Here, > Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually > transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - > information from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T > (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise > service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over > enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here > )... > Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and > control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to > access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to > me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask >>> a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the >>> recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I >>> refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. >>> Apart from the fact that there are news reports >>> >>> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for >>> different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by >>> nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these >>> companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated >>> with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >>> ', its revolving doors >>> with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime >>> change ideas >>> . >>> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, >>> and not other things in the same region..... >>> >>> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share >>> data with US government extended only to such data that is actually >>> located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all >>> data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever >>> it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but >>> still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these >>> companies.) >>> >>> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually >>> resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face >>> of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing >>> data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data >>> outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, >>> the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, >>> and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no >>> such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have >>> set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for >>> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the >>> sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of >>> non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for >>> enhancing their bottom-lines? >>> >>> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there >>> can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of >>> a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force >>> these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... >>> Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the >>> US gov? >>> >>> >>> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >>> >>> parminder >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 04:27:10 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:57:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9741F607-3753-41A2-985E-701B8D928BA9@hserus.net> Different corporate entities registered in each country make that an interesting question to ask Speaking of india, it is generally the case that indian law enforcement sends warrants to the indian branches of whichever provider they want data produced from in an investigation. Normally, there is compliance. However, operating within a framework of warrants - even semi secret warrants like NSLs - is entirely different from the framework of installing warrantless taps, involving expensive monitoring equipment. --srs (iPad) On 25-Jun-2013, at 13:04, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... >>> >>> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) >>> >>> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? >>> >>> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? >>> >>> >>> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >>> >>> parminder >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 04:53:10 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 08:53:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <9741F607-3753-41A2-985E-701B8D928BA9@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <9741F607-3753-41A2-985E-701B8D928BA9@hserus.net> Message-ID: <1009351312-1372150404-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1063579786-@b17.c10.bise7.blackberry> Interestıng. At a forum last wk, ı asked ıf non-US users dıdnt v a locus standıng to brıng a suıt agaınst provıders lıke Google, MS, Facebook et al for breachıng theır prıvacy. Also, what about specıfıc countrıes ınıtıatıng sımılar suıts on grounds of breachıng state rıghts sınce provıders are not regarded to be ınto espıonage. I thınk as users, further use of servıce by any provıder calls for some more readıng of the T&C sectıons (hopefully they'll come ın bıgger prınt from now) Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Ramasubramanian Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 13:57:10 To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,Suresh Ramasubramanian Cc: katitza at eff.org; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Different corporate entities registered in each country make that an interesting question to ask Speaking of india, it is generally the case that indian law enforcement sends warrants to the indian branches of whichever provider they want data produced from in an investigation. Normally, there is compliance. However, operating within a framework of warrants - even semi secret warrants like NSLs - is entirely different from the framework of installing warrantless taps, involving expensive monitoring equipment. --srs (iPad) On 25-Jun-2013, at 13:04, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >>> Hi All >>> >>> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... >>> >>> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) >>> >>> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? >>> >>> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? >>> >>> >>> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >>> >>> parminder >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 25 05:14:18 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:14:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two > things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical standards and business systems, to make them meet the needs (including privacy needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well - even in the absence of full decentralization of the Internet's architecture. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 05:21:33 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:51:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> On 25-Jun-2013, at 14:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to > re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical standards > and business systems, to make them meet the needs (including privacy > needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well - even in the absence > of full decentralization of the Internet's architecture. > Seems to me there's more a need to implement already available standards, than actually create any new standard. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 05:25:14 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:55:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 02:44 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: > Parminder wrote: > >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two >> things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's >> architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, >> principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our >> collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and >> responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >> >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to > re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical standards > and business systems, to make them meet the needs (including privacy > needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well - even in the absence > of full decentralization of the Internet's architecture. Really open mandatory standards, for instance, for inter operability of social media platforms, is one key way to decentralise.... These are the kind of things that I meant by decentralising the Internet's architecture... parminder > > Greetings, > Norbert > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 05:31:20 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:01:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3B65ED16-3DB1-4FFE-9A17-F098A9C4CD42@hserus.net> On 25-Jun-2013, at 14:55, parminder wrote: > Really open mandatory standards, for instance, for inter operability of social media platforms, is one key way to decentralise.... These are the kind of things that I meant by decentralising the Internet's architecture... parminder > The internet's core architecture is massively decentralized and redundant As for individual applications running on the internet - say social networks - you are already able to link say your skype account to your yahoo account, or ensure that your posts to facebook are also broadcast to twitter, and that you can read all your social media posts in a single client. If that is merely all you want it already appears achieved thanks to OAUTH, SAML, JSON and a few other cool 3 and 4 letter acronyms. But they are not "the architecture of the internet" --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 25 05:50:04 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 11:50:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130625115004.10f97b36@quill.bollow.ch> Am Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:51:33 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > On 25-Jun-2013, at 14:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to > > re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical > > standards and business systems, to make them meet the needs > > (including privacy needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well > > - even in the absence of full decentralization of the Internet's > > architecture. > > > > Seems to me there's more a need to implement already available > standards, than actually create any new standard. In the context of the title of this thread (“PRISM...”) I was thinking of standards that would have the effect of protecting the privacy of casual communication via the Internet (e.g. by email or “chat”) among a specific group of people (i.e. I'm talking about the kind of use case that does not involve an open mailing list), including privacy protection of communication metadata (such as who communicates with whom, form where, at what time) to the extent possible. I'm not aware of an adequate set of standards for that, but I'm happy to get educated. :-) Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 06:08:01 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:38:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130625115004.10f97b36@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> <20130625115004.10f97b36@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 25-Jun-2013, at 15:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > In the context of the title of this thread (“PRISM...”) I was thinking > of standards that would have the effect of protecting the privacy of > casual communication via the Internet (e.g. by email or “chat”) among a PGP type encryption of sensitive email Peer to peer encrypted chat using open source clients like gaim, that come with an "off the record messaging" plugin That still won't quite guard against "metadata" if you use a public service that is hosted in the USA, but it will certainly protect the contents of your conversation. You might of course run a jabber chatroom in some more privacy sensitive jurisdiction to get like minded people onto it. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From marie.georges at noos.fr Tue Jun 25 06:33:46 2013 From: marie.georges at noos.fr (Marie GEORGES) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:33:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51BE4C82-8C90-41D2-B142-4B1F5B4D0AF8@noos.fr> dear Parminder, In Brackets : for social networks functions, as Eben Moglen showed it, there is no technical need for "platforms"... we need, as our "friends" only a small electronic thing with those functions and memory big as the plug to charge of energy a mobile.... best to you Marie Le 25 juin 2013 à 11:25, parminder a écrit : > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013 02:44 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >> Parminder wrote: >> >>> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two >>> things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's >>> architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, >>> principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our >>> collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and >>> responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >>> >>> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >> Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to >> re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical standards >> and business systems, to make them meet the needs (including privacy >> needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well - even in the absence >> of full decentralization of the Internet's architecture. > > Really open mandatory standards, for instance, for inter operability of social media platforms, is one key way to decentralise.... These are the kind of things that I meant by decentralising the Internet's architecture... parminder >> >> Greetings, >> Norbert >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 25 06:37:28 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:37:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> <20130625115004.10f97b36@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130625123728.2b6fa9f4@quill.bollow.ch> Am Tue, 25 Jun 2013 15:38:01 +0530 schrieb Suresh Ramasubramanian : > On 25-Jun-2013, at 15:20, Norbert Bollow wrote: > > > In the context of the title of this thread (“PRISM...”) I was > > thinking of standards that would have the effect of protecting the > > privacy of casual communication via the Internet (e.g. by email or > > “chat”) among a > > PGP type encryption of sensitive email > > Peer to peer encrypted chat using open source clients like gaim, that > come with an "off the record messaging" plugin > > That still won't quite guard against "metadata" if you use a public > service that is hosted in the USA, but it will certainly protect the > contents of your conversation. > > You might of course run a jabber chatroom in some more privacy > sensitive jurisdiction to get like minded people onto it. I'm aware of all that, it's what one does for particularly sensitive conversations - those mechanisms are really not designed for making them adequate to protect the privacy of everyone's casual conversations, including metadata, as well as possible without interfering with ease of use. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 06:45:58 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:15:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130625123728.2b6fa9f4@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <96FCDD42-7B78-466B-974B-E5EF5D9C2ABC@hserus.net> <20130625115004.10f97b36@quill.bollow.ch> <20130625123728.2b6fa9f4@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <6933EAA6-052D-43A9-8EB8-4A9CD8BC443E@hserus.net> On 25-Jun-2013, at 16:07, Norbert Bollow wrote: > I'm aware of all that, it's what one does for particularly sensitive > conversations - those mechanisms are really not designed for making > them adequate to protect the privacy of everyone's casual conversations, > including metadata, as well as possible without interfering with ease > of use. > In which case - identify a service committed to privacy in a country that does not take lawful intercept to the extent that the USA does (not to mention say china / Saudi Arabia and other "great firewall" countries do), and patronize it would be the only way to go. -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 25 06:54:47 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 12:54:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] social media platforms interop specs (was Re: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership) In-Reply-To: <3B65ED16-3DB1-4FFE-9A17-F098A9C4CD42@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> <3B65ED16-3DB1-4FFE-9A17-F098A9C4CD42@hserus.net> Message-ID: <20130625125447.3c20f62c@quill.bollow.ch> Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > On 25-Jun-2013, at 14:55, parminder wrote: > > > Really open mandatory standards, for instance, for inter > > operability of social media platforms, is one key way to > > decentralise.... These are the kind of things that I meant by > > decentralising the Internet's architecture... parminder > > > > The internet's core architecture is massively decentralized and > redundant > > As for individual applications running on the internet - say social > networks - you are already able to link say your skype account to > your yahoo account, or ensure that your posts to facebook are also > broadcast to twitter, and that you can read all your social media > posts in a single client. > > If that is merely all you want it already appears achieved thanks to > OAUTH, SAML, JSON and a few other cool 3 and 4 letter acronyms. But > they are not "the architecture of the internet" What I'd be looking for in that space is the ability for anyone to set up a “social media platform server” so that the people who register for an account on that server will be able to fully participate in the interactions of a given, pre-existing social media user community. In regard to email I can do that: If I want to be able to fully participate in the exchange of emails with e.g. gmail users, I can simply set up a mailserver which conforms to the relevant RFCs. But I cannot similarly join the community of Facebook users without using the service of Facebook Inc. and agreeing to the TOS that comes with it: The standardized interoperability interfaces that would be needed for that don't exist. Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Jun 25 07:02:43 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:32:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51BE4C82-8C90-41D2-B142-4B1F5B4D0AF8@noos.fr> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> <51BE4C82-8C90-41D2-B142-4B1F5B4D0AF8@noos.fr> Message-ID: <51C978D3.7040302@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 04:03 PM, Marie GEORGES wrote: > dear Parminder, > In Brackets : for social networks functions, as Eben Moglen showed it, there is no technical need for "platforms"... we need, as our "friends" only a small electronic thing with those functions and memory big as the plug to charge of energy a mobile.... Dear Marie, I am a big fan of Moglen's freedom box experiment. However, it is also my belief that in the networked digital environment, norms/ principles/ frameworks/ policy based initiatives have to work hand in hand with progressive practices from below. The latter alone are not going to be enough; such is the, well, networked logic of the networked environment ... I think the 'progressive techie' has to partially come out of the stand alone 'open source' mentality and think anew in the networked digital space, whose logics are quite different. Progressive politics and progressive grass-root practices have to meld together. This is the most pressing need for the current times. regards, parminder > best to you > Marie > Le 25 juin 2013 à 11:25, parminder a écrit : > >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 02:44 PM, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two >>>> things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's >>>> architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, >>>> principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our >>>> collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and >>>> responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >>>> >>>> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >>> Alternatively, it may be possible and more easily feasible to >>> re-engineer, to the extent necessary, the relevant technical standards >>> and business systems, to make them meet the needs (including privacy >>> needs etc.) of users, worldwide, reasonably well - even in the absence >>> of full decentralization of the Internet's architecture. >> Really open mandatory standards, for instance, for inter operability of social media platforms, is one key way to decentralise.... These are the kind of things that I meant by decentralising the Internet's architecture... parminder >>> Greetings, >>> Norbert >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Tue Jun 25 07:08:49 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:38:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] social media platforms interop specs (was Re: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership) In-Reply-To: <20130625125447.3c20f62c@quill.bollow.ch> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <20130625111418.6ce9db29@quill.bollow.ch> <51C961FA.2030202@itforchange.net> <3B65ED16-3DB1-4FFE-9A17-F098A9C4CD42@hserus.net> <20130625125447.3c20f62c@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: On 25-Jun-2013, at 16:24, Norbert Bollow wrote: > But I cannot similarly join the community of Facebook users without > using the service of Facebook Inc. and agreeing to the TOS that comes > with it: The standardized interoperability interfaces that would be > needed for that don't exist. > Well, to some extent - you can send an email to joeuser at facebook.com and have it arrive as a private message. He can then reply to that private message and the response will land in your inbox, without your having to use a facebook account. Beyond that - no, these weren't generally designed to be interoperable, and while the bits and pieces exist, this isn't a unified messaging type of platform. --srs -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From babatope at gmail.com Tue Jun 25 05:39:57 2013 From: babatope at gmail.com (babatope at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 09:39:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> Message-ID: <1195385074-1372160374-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-728124772-@b17.c10.bise7.blackberry> Thanks Declan for sharıng some of the steps taken by provıders to challenge PRISM and/or sımılar actıons Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone from Etisalat. Enjoy high speed mobile broadband on any of our Easyblaze plans. Visit www.etisalat.com.ng for details. -----Original Message----- From: McTim Sender: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:47:44 To: ; Declan McCullagh Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,McTim Cc: Ian Peter; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote: > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> I think one point here is whether any of the companies actually challenged in court any of the rulings or requests for data, and to my knowledge they did not. This suggests that either they were too scared of the government to challenge the rulings, or they were in political agreement with them. > > > None of this information is difficult to find. Would you like it if someone said: "To my knowledge you haven't denied being a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan. This suggests you are in political agreement with them?" :) Well said Declan. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Tue Jun 25 11:48:05 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:48:05 +0200 Subject: [governance] WisdomTF (was Re: Evidence-based policy-making and impact assessments for Internet-related policies) In-Reply-To: References: <20130507194542.18c72f9d@quill.bollow.ch> <20130620174528.6fa0ea6b@quill.bollow.ch> Message-ID: <20130625174805.5fb35c79@quill.bollow.ch> Mawaki Chango wrote: > Thanks, Norbert, for your clear and informative responses. The goal of > WisdomTF is commendable although (if the experience on this list were > to be of any lesson) the task might be more daunting to reach > consensus What we have been seeing here in the IGC is that one cannot expect to reach consensus (and sometimes even just having a constrictive discourse can become difficult) if the diversity (of viewpoints, interests, styles of communication, and understandings of fundamental terms) is too great. The design of WisdomTF addresses that problem by foreseeing a mechanism through which that kind of problem can be addressed: If a working-group is (in the opinion of a number of participants) not making enough progress towards consensus, they are able to initiate a more focused competing group. How well the specific mechanism that I'm proposing will work in practice is an empirical question of course, we won't know until it is tried out. At least something is there to prevent a mere duplication of the difficulties with consensus processes that we have here in the IGC. If the initial set of procedures doesn't work well enough, I fully expect that (if necessary after tweaking the initial procedures a bit), it will be possible to arrive at a set of procedures that meet the needs. > on what's good (what works and to what extent) and what's > not in terms of policy than it is with technical standards and IETF. Where there are several viewpoints that all appear to be legitimate in that they don't violate fundamental principles (the internationally recognized human rights and the contents of the WSIS-CS declaration of 2003 are considered fundamental principles for all of WisdomTF; some working-group charters may adopt additional principles - which do not contradict those - as part of the basis on which they operate), a consensus document can be produced that explains all of those viewpoints and about what is known to speak and favor and against each of them. > Nonetheless, there might be proven good experiences, "best practices" > and critical lessons learned, and it will go a long way to have a > place, or a couple of them, globally recognized as places where one > can get robust, state-of-the-art information or knowledge or > experience on the critical policy issues of the day. Yes, definitely - but I certainly want WisdomTF to go beyond the areas where a consensus exists among the truly knowledgeable and well-informed people on what is a “best practice”. For example, even when it is not clear what is a “best practice”, there may be some intuitively convincing policy options that have been tried in some countries already and that have failed to deliver what was expected from them. I believe that there is great value in collecting such information even in the absence of consensus on what could be recommended as a “best practice”. > While I'm at it, it just occurs to me that one of the main challenges > will first be to distinguish the question "what works?" (or "what's > good?" in that sense) from these questions "what's good? what's > better? what's best?" in the normative sense, although the normative > dimension is also crucial in policy-making. Actually many questions that appear to be normative and therefore intractible (to consensus processes) in some particular policy contexts look very different when considered in the light of the global systemic perspective of seeking to globally realize the internationally agreed human rights and the vision of the WSIS-CS declaration of 2003. Greetings, Norbert -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From joana at varonferraz.com Tue Jun 25 18:59:31 2013 From: joana at varonferraz.com (Joana Varon) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 19:59:31 -0300 Subject: [governance] Obama on whistleblowers protection back in 2008 - things change... Message-ID: http://obama.3cdn.net/0080cc578614b42284_2a0mvyxpz.pdf pag 7 paragraph III: *Protect Whistleblowers:* Often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government is an existing government employee committed to public integrity and willing to speak out. Such acts of courage and patriotism, which can sometimes save lives and often save taxpayer dollars, should be encouraged rather than stifled as they have been during the Bush administration. We need to empower federal employees as watchdogs of wrongdoing and partners in performance. Barack Obama will strengthen whistleblower laws to protect federal workers who expose waste, fraud, and abuse of authority in government. Obama will ensure that federal agencies expedite the process for reviewing whistleblower claims and whistleblowers have full access to courts and due process. How cute? -- Joana Varon Ferraz Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV) @joana_varo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From declan at well.com Tue Jun 25 20:59:06 2013 From: declan at well.com (Declan McCullagh) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:59:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <02a701ce7130$c072c900$41585b00$@jstyre.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> <02a701ce7130$c072c900$41585b00$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <11C2691E3ED547CE97BE94E9FE531D1A@well.com> On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > Oddly, Google's motion in FISC isn't on FISC's public docket, only ours and ACLU's. But then, FISC isn't used to having a public docket, it isn't exactly real time such as with PACER. (I've seen Google's motion, I know it exists, it just hasn't been docketed yet.) > http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html Agreed. This is odd. I noticed it as well, but figured that they were just slow? > > Declan, did you take that pic of AT&T's Folsom St. facility in the last article you linked? I think one has to actually see the building in person to realize just how menacing it is, but that is a pretty good shot of it. '-) I did! It helps that it's less than a block from my office. :) -Declan -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From Andrew at gp-digital.org Tue Jun 25 11:59:55 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 16:59:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Message-ID: <20130626051309.1E65C1D0F8016@agora.bollow.ch> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the privacy rights of users. Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism" led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t s ubject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Wed Jun 26 02:34:52 2013 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 08:34:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <20130626051309.1E65C1D0F8016@agora.bollow.ch> Message-ID: In this context I suggest a look at the recent guide by the EU Commission: ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Kind regards Wolfgang Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek Institute for International Law and International Relations University of Graz Universitätsstraße 15, A4 A-8010 Graz Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 Fax: +43/316/380/9455 Am 25.06.13 17:59 schrieb "Andrew Puddephatt" unter : >Just welcoming Parminder¹s focus on companies here. I feel that the >current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more >rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of >global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed >work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional >questions ­ specifically the role of global companies rooted in one >jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some >German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud >distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > >I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has >flagged up ­ we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing >out this is a way for country¹s to escape the US orbit ­ as long as we >can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national >infrastructures ­ which is where the norms and principles need to be >carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then >discuss in person at Bali? > >Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > >Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is >important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and >promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > >Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the >right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law >against such interference or attacks. > >The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in >narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws >and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international >human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and >proportionate for the relevant purpose. > >Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal >information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the >privacy rights of users. > >Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of >users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that >compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally >recognized laws and standards. > >Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting ­ it >implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to >comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and >standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? > > > > >Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >Executive Director >Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >gp-digital.org > >From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder >Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 >To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of >data or its legal ownership > > >This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist >system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much >of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They >find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in >the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their >best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, >political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team >leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been >about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been >about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. > >Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian >Assange spoke of "technocratic >imperialismof-googles-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>" led by the US-Google >combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so >eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent >episodes. > >What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two >things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's >architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, >principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our >collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and >responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > >But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > >parminder > >On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > >On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer >is somewhat complex > >if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by >companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it >is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, >2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular >warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. > >The legal standard for production of information by a third party, >including cloud computing services under US civil >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the >information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that >is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn¹t matter where the information is >physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, >where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for >users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service >they use, and whether the cloud computing service has ³possession, >custody or control² of their data, wherever it rests physically. For >example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company >was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have >³possession, custody, or control² of the data held by the subsidiary and >thus the data wasn¹t s > ubject to US jurisdiction. > >Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European >sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of >the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be >obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a >country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as >serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email >could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions >of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - >or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into >US borders. > >What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T >(through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service >provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over >enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see >here )... >Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and >control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access >by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where >are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > >parminder > > > > >On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >Hi All > >There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a >lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM >plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that >everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that >there are news >reports-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html> that US based tech companies >regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in >return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not >forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which >are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about >'Google Ideas', its revolving >doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime >change ideas. >Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, > say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... > >Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data >with US government extended only to such data that is actually located >in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the >legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I >think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be >absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > >Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided >in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was >obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US >citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For >instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose >citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their >data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know >that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies >headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ >evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, >well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they >so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > >Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can >be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country >within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to >hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act >perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > >I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... > >parminder > > > > >-- > >Katitza Rodriguez > >International Rights Director > >Electronic Frontier Foundation > >katitza at eff.org > >katitza at datos-personales.org >(personal email) > > > >Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom >of speech since 1990 > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From Andrew at gp-digital.org Wed Jun 26 05:15:56 2013 From: Andrew at gp-digital.org (Andrew Puddephatt) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:15:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] Sent: 26 June 2013 08:30 To: Andrew Puddephatt Cc: 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership Dear Andrew Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! best MF On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the privacy rights of users. Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism" led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. parminder On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... parminder On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: Hi All There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... parminder -- Katitza Rodriguez International Rights Director Electronic Frontier Foundation katitza at eff.org katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk Wed Jun 26 03:29:51 2013 From: m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk (Marianne Franklin) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 09:29:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Dear Andrew Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! best MF On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the > current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more > rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of > global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any > detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and > jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies > rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I > note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a > German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has > flagged up – we can reinforce thepush for norms and principles > pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as > long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate > national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles > need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss > online and then discuss in person at Bali? > > Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is > important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and > promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with > the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of > the law against such interference or attacks. > > The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except > in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized > laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with > international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be > necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. > > Participating companies will employ protections with respect to > personal information in all countries where they operate in order to > protect the privacy rights of users. > > Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of > users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations > that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally > recognized laws and standards. > > Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – > it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when > asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws > and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location > of data or its legal ownership > > > This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that > much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... > They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one > superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US > establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of > course finds so much military, political, economic, social and > cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win > win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most > global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of > the civil society often spoken of here. > > Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that > Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism > " > led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... > Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the > hook with respect to the recent episodes. > > What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two > things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > parminder > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: > The answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the > US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the > position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including > National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under > section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and > subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a third > party, including cloud computing services under US civil > (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law > is whether the information is under the "possession, custody > or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It > doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, > where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the > person whose information is sought is located. The issue for > users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud > computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing > service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, > wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a > situation in which a large US-based company was loosely > related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have > “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the > subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an > European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the > transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US > borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents > to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google > broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as > espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email > could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on > instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a > piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information > from beyond US borders into US borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. > AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest > enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been > a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for > instance see here > )... > Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody > and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair > game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding > progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in > this global space.... > > parminder > > > > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need > to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms > of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on > them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced > upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports > > that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov > for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply > motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that > many of these companies have strong political agenda which are > closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all > know about 'Google Ideas > ', its revolving > doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive > regime change ideas > . > Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA > region, and not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to > share data with US government extended only to such data that > is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it > extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of > these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly > hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely > sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that > actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these > companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and > intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not > simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, > it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose > citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift > all their data to servers in other countries that made no such > demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have > set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange > places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could > they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, > lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what > they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that > there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of > citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law > which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a > country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too > unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these > companies..... > > parminder > > > > > -- > > Katitza Rodriguez > > International Rights Director > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > katitza at eff.org > > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > -- Dr Marianne Franklin Reader Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) Goldsmiths, University of London Dept. of Media & Communications New Cross, London SE14 6NW Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 @GloComm https://twitter.com/GloComm http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 26 05:33:04 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:03:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <51670FCF-3816-4FD9-B154-6312D85E9536@hserus.net> The other part of the conversation that is getting missed here is that the proposed method appears to be confrontational. Essentially, to paraphrase a previous email in this thread, "we don't believe the companies", "they are lying", and "we need to be tougher on them". That is absolutely not an attitude we need to take, and nor should we. That said, I support your approach below. --srs (iPad) On 26-Jun-2013, at 12:59, Marianne Franklin wrote: > Dear Andrew > > Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! > > With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. > > As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. > > Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. > > Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. > > The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! > > best > MF > > On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. >> >> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? >> >> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: >> >> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. >> >> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. >> >> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant purpose. >> >> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the privacy rights of users. >> >> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally recognized laws and standards. >> >> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? >> >> >> >> >> >> Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> Executive Director >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> gp-digital.org >> >> From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder >> Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 >> To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership >> >> >> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. >> >> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism" led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent episodes. >> >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >> >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a third party, including cloud computing services under US civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. >> >> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see here )... Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> Hi All >> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that there are news reports that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas', its revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime change ideas. Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... >> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data with US government extended only to such data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) >> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? >> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? >> >> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> -- >> Katitza Rodriguez >> International Rights Director >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> katitza at eff.org >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Jun 26 06:24:16 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:54:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> Message-ID: <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated society... And that the global civil society should pause, and retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM plus disclosures. Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the present moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is that we need to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil society took the stance that less rather than more global IG is better..... That was a mistake, and continues to be a mistake... Internet is big, it is global, it transforms everything. And the prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - governance of it can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that - whether it is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more global IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at the global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the right direction.... And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. ... What disclosures can and should the telecom and application companies share about data hosting and transit, and applicability of different jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We need to drill down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens only when there are clear focal points for policy development that exist (See for instance the real work that is going on right now in Marrakesh for writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed material for the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen the kind of joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy dialogue forum.... We need to take preventive action against such motivated obfuscations.... So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal point for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real norms, policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no other option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they exist.... parminder On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] > *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 > *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location > of data or its legal ownership > > Dear Andrew > > Have been following the conversation with interest. The point > Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring > that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised > at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that > indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding > as if no work at all has been done around human rights norms and > principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has > been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If > we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all doomed to > repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! > > With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think > it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and > Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use > the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the > cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting > this current version was precisely in order to be precise and > coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this process > and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness > then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. > > As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on > the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the > work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in > turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended > to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended > and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational > framing for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and > situations such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have > been thrown into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is > also careful to include the responsibility of companies as integral to > these emerging norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was > a project worth engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did > achieve something quite remarkable. > > Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at > least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that > these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online > and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in > this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP > Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker > parts of the current Beta version > (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen > awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn > organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in > recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being > done through Best Bits. > > Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, > here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC > Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles > are intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual > Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance > Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition supports > implicitly. > > The only question I am getting from members is about how better to > work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in > establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No > need to reinvent the wheel in other words! > > best > MF > > On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > > Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that > the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a > lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like > the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has > done any detailed work on this in relation to > security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically > the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction > (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German > MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud > distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder > has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and > principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the > US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the > internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where > the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this > something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? > > Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy > is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity > and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference > with the right to privacy and should have the right to the > protection of the law against such interference or attacks. > > The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, > except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally > recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be > consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the > rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant > purpose. > > Participating companies will employ protections with respect to > personal information in all countries where they operate in order > to protect the privacy rights of users. > > Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy > rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or > regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with > internationally recognized laws and standards. > > Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting > – it implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even > when asked to comply with laws that breach internationally > recognized laws and standards which I assume everyone thinks that > FISA does? > > *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > > Executive Director > > Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > > T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > andrewpuddephatt > *gp-digital.org* > > *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > > [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 > *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > ; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org > *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial > location of data or its legal ownership > > > This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know > that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery > grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of > the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that > the US establishement is their best political and legal cover. > The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, > social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an > absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And > this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about > - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. > > Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that > Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism > " > led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... > Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off > the hook with respect to the recent episodes. > > What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, > two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > parminder > > > On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional > issues: The answer is somewhat complex > > if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in > the US by companies based overseas), the government has > taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal > processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) > Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and > regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the > user is located. > > The legal standard for production of information by a > third party, including cloud computing services under US > civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law > is whether the information is under the "possession, > custody or control" of a party that is subject to US > jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is > physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, > importantly, where the person whose information is sought > is located. The issue for users is whether the US has > jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, > and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, > custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests > physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in > which a large US-based company was loosely related to a > subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, > custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary > and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > > > Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an > European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the > transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US > borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the > contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim > that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as > serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to > European email could have carried classified information! > Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have > actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise > illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into US > borders. > > What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. > AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest > enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has > been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global > espionage (for instance see here > > )... Would all the information that AT & T has the > "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter > not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this > looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, > who lays the rules in this global space.... > > parminder > > > > > > On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > Hi All > > There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still > need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies > in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are > being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that > everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from > the fact that there are news reports > > that US based tech companies regularly share data with US > gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even > simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not > forget that many of these companies have strong political > agenda which are closely associated with that of the US > gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas > ', its > revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its > own aggressive regime change ideas > . > Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA > region, and not other things in the same region..... > > Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to > share data with US government extended only to such data > that is actually located in, or flows, through, the US. > Or, does it extend to all data within the legal control/ > ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I > think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I > want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly from these > companies.) > > Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that > actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these > companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and > intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, > not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For > instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data > of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, > and shift all their data to servers in other countries > that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the > involved companies have set up near fictitious companies > headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax > avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of > protecting human rights, well, lets only say, the trust, > of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very > efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand > that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the > data of citizens of a country within its border, there > isnt any law which can force these companies to hold > foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any > such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > I am sure others may have other questions to ask these > companies..... > > parminder > > > > > > -- > > Katitza Rodriguez > > International Rights Director > > Electronic Frontier Foundation > > katitza at eff.org > > katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) > > > > Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 > > > > -- > Dr Marianne Franklin > Reader > Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > Goldsmiths, University of London > Dept. of Media & Communications > New Cross, London SE14 6NW > Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > > @GloComm > https://twitter.com/GloComm > http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > @netrights -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Jun 26 07:52:30 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:52:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Global Internet Policy Observatory / conference call on 5 July 2013 Message-ID: Dear all, some of you are already aware of the announcement by the European Commission concerning the Global Internet Policy Observatory initiative. For those who don't, you can find the text of the announcement here: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/commission-plans-guide-through-global-internet-policy-labyrinth and a blog post by Neelei Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission, here: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/neelie-kroes/gipo/ The European Commission is organising a tele-conference on *5 July 2013*(from 13h30 to 15h30, Brussels time) which will be the occasion to present the "state of play" of the initiative and discuss the next steps. We are currently preparing a background document to share with participants and other interested parties and I do hope - but at this stage cannot commit - that it will be ready before the conference call. If you are interesed in attending the call, please write to *my work e-mail address* (for ease of tracking), i.e. *Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu* and I will send the necessary data. Please feel free to share this with other parties whom you think would be interested. Best, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From diegocanabarro at gmail.com Wed Jun 26 10:27:00 2013 From: diegocanabarro at gmail.com (Diego Rafael Canabarro) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 10:27:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Snowden a 'free man' in Moscow airport, Russian president says Message-ID: *(CNN)* -- Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor who spilled U.S. surveillance secrets to the world, is a "free man" biding his time in a Moscow airport, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters Tuesday. http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/25/politics/nsa-leak/index.html?hpt=hp_c3 -- Diego R. Canabarro http://lattes.cnpq.br/4980585945314597 -- diego.canabarro [at] ufrgs.br diego [at] pubpol.umass.edu MSN: diegocanabarro [at] gmail.com Skype: diegocanabarro Cell # +55-51-9244-3425 (Brasil) / +1-413-362-0133 (USA) -- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Wed Jun 26 10:34:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 20:04:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Message-ID: Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from igcaucus I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being inducted this time. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: David Farber Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) To: ip Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees   Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history through their vision and determination   Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany   [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013]  The Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs.   The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, and leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of an open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and work today.    The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are:   Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the early design and development of the Internet:   David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn   Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach:   Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales   Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet:   Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner (posthumous), George Sadowsky   “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these individuals have pushed the boundaries of technological and social innovation to connect the world and make it a better place.  Whether they were instrumental in the Internet’s early design, expanding its global reach, or creating new innovations, we all benefit today from their dedication and foresight.” Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location of its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally scheduled for Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable environment. The ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, Germany and will also be live streamed at https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame.   More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including their biographies and photos, can be found atwww.internethalloffame.org. You can follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at @Internet_HOF.   About the Internet Hall of Fame The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a distinguished and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made significant contributions to the development and advancement of the global open Internet.  More information on the program can be found at www.internethalloffame.org. Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Jun 26 12:28:32 2013 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:28:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Global Internet Policy Observatory / conference call on 5 July 2013 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Andrea Glorioso wrote: > The European Commission is organising a tele-conference on *5 July 2013*(from 13h30 to 15h30, Brussels time) which will be the occasion to present > the "state of play" of the initiative and discuss the next steps. > > We are currently preparing a background document to share with > participants and other interested parties and I do hope - but at this stage > cannot commit - that it will be ready before the conference call. > > If you are interesed in attending the call, please write to *my work > e-mail address* (for ease of tracking), i.e. *Andrea.Glorioso at ec.europa.eu > * and I will send the necessary data. > > Please feel free to share this with other parties whom you think would be > interested. > Just a small clarification, because of some emails I received privately: the call is not meant to be restricted to citizens of Member States of the European Union. You are all welcome to join, wherever you call from. Best, -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Jun 26 13:32:22 2013 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 19:32:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] RE: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: References: <20130626051309.1E65C1D0F8016@agora.bollow.ch> Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang for this pointer to the EU's ICT Sector Guide. The process of drafting the ICT Guide had another particularly useful aspect. The ICT Guide was done in parallel to guides to two other business sectors (employment and recruitment agencies, and oil and gas companies). There was a good balance between cross-fertilisation among the three areas, and the uniqueness of each area. For me, the level of commonality among the three business areas (ICT sector, employment/recruitment and oil/gas) was higher than I expected. Another initiative that may have relevance in the future, especially in the case of the 'securitisation' of the Internet space, is the Montreaux document on private military and security companies. Regards, Jovan *Jovan Kurbalija, Phd* Director, DiploFoundation * Note: *If you have been waiting for a reply from me, this might explain my tardiness. Thank you for your patience!* **Upcoming online courses at Diplo: *Master in Contemporary Diplomacy (with Internet Governance option) *l* Humanitarian Diplomacy * l** *Capacity Development * l** * *Multilateral Diplomacy **l* * **Infrastructure and Critical Internet Resources **l** **Complete Catalogue of Online Courses * ** On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Benedek, Wolfgang ( wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > In this context I suggest a look at the recent guide by the EU Commission: > ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and > Human Rights. > > Kind regards > > Wolfgang > > Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek > Institute for International Law and International Relations > University of Graz > Universitätsstraße 15, A4 > A-8010 Graz > Tel.: +43/316/380/3411 > Fax: +43/316/380/9455 > > > > > > > Am 25.06.13 17:59 schrieb "Andrew Puddephatt" unter > : > > >Just welcoming Parminder¹s focus on companies here. I feel that the > >current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot more > >rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the idea of > >global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done any detailed > >work on this in relation to security/surveillance and jurisdictional > >questions ­ specifically the role of global companies rooted in one > >jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some > >German MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud > >distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > > > >I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder has > >flagged up ­ we can reinforce the push for norms and principles pointing > >out this is a way for country¹s to escape the US orbit ­ as long as we > >can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into separate national > >infrastructures ­ which is where the norms and principles need to be > >carefully defined. Is this something we can discuss online and then > >discuss in person at Bali? > > > >Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > > > > > >Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy is > >important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity and > >promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > > > >Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference with the > >right to privacy and should have the right to the protection of the law > >against such interference or attacks. > > > >The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, except in > >narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally recognized laws > >and standards. These restrictions should be consistent with international > >human rights laws and standards, the rule of law and be necessary and > >proportionate for the relevant purpose. > > > >Participating companies will employ protections with respect to personal > >information in all countries where they operate in order to protect the > >privacy rights of users. > > > >Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy rights of > >users when confronted with government demands, laws or regulations that > >compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with internationally > >recognized laws and standards. > > > >Is this something to build upon? The final clause is interesting ­ it > >implies that signatory companies will respect privacy even when asked to > >comply with laws that breach internationally recognized laws and > >standards which I assume everyone thinks that FISA does? > > > > > > > > > >Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > >Executive Director > >Development House, 56­64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >gp-digital.org > > > >From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > >[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of parminder > >Sent: 25 June 2013 09:25 > >To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >Subject: Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of > >data or its legal ownership > > > > > >This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > >system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that much > >of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery grounds.... They > >find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of the one superpower in > >the world today, the US... They know that the US establishement is their > >best political and legal cover. The US of course finds so much military, > >political, economic, social and cultural capital in being the team > >leader... It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been > >about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been > >about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. > > > >Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures that Julian > >Assange spoke of "technocratic > >imperialism< > http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/02/opinion/sunday/the-banality- > >of-googles-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>" led by the US-Google > >combine... How quite to the point he was... Although so many of us are so > >eager to let the big companies off the hook with respect to the recent > >episodes. > > > >What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, two > >things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's > >architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, > >principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our > >collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and > >responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > > > >But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > > > >parminder > > > >On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > > > >On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional issues: The answer > >is somewhat complex > > > >if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by > >companies based overseas), the government has taken the position that it > >is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National Security Letters, > >2703(d) Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and regular > >warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is located. > > > >The legal standard for production of information by a third party, > >including cloud computing services under US civil > >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and criminal > >(http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is whether the > >information is under the "possession, custody or control" of a party that > >is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn¹t matter where the information is > >physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, importantly, > >where the person whose information is sought is located. The issue for > >users is whether the US has jurisdiction over the cloud computing service > >they use, and whether the cloud computing service has ³possession, > >custody or control² of their data, wherever it rests physically. For > >example, one could imagine a situation in which a large US-based company > >was loosely related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have > >³possession, custody, or control² of the data held by the subsidiary and > >thus the data wasn¹t s > > ubject to US jurisdiction. > > > >Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an European > >sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the transit and storage of > >the content never in fact reaches US borders, Google would still be > >obliged to hand over the contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a > >country claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps as > >serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to European email > >could have carried classified information! Here, Google, on instructions > >of US authorities would have actually transported a piece of classified - > >or otherwise illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into > >US borders. > > > >What about US telcos working in other countries, say in India. AT&T > >(through a majority held JV) claims to be the largest enterprise service > >provider in India. And we know AT & T has been a somewhat over > >enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage (for instance see > >here )... > >Would all the information that AT & T has the "possession. custody and > >control" of in India in this matter not be considered fair game to access > >by the US...... All this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where > >are the limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > > > >parminder > > > > > > > > > >On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > >Hi All > > > >There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still need to ask a > >lot of questions from the involved companies in terms of the recent PRISM > >plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that > >everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that > >there are news > >reports< > http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-14/u-s-agencies-said-to-swap > >-data-with-thousands-of-firms.html> that US based tech companies > >regularly share data with US gov for different kinds of favours in > >return, or even simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not > >forget that many of these companies have strong political agenda which > >are closely associated with that of the US gov. You must all know about > >'Google Ideas', its revolving > >doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own aggressive regime > >change ideas. > >Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, > > say in MENA region, and not other things in the same region..... > > > >Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations to share data > >with US government extended only to such data that is actually located > >in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend to all data within the > >legal control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may reside. (I > >think, certainly hope, it must be the former, but still I want to be > >absolutely sure, and hear directly from these companies.) > > > >Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that actually resided > >in servers inside the US, why did these companies, in face of what was > >obviously very broad and intrusive demands for sharing data about non US > >citizens, not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For > >instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data of whose > >citizens was repeatedly sought by US authorities, and shift all their > >data to servers in other countries that made no such demand? Now, we know > >that many of the involved companies have set up near fictitious companies > >headquartered in strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ > >evasion. Why could they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, > >well, lets only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they > >so very efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? > > > >Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand that there can > >be some laws to force a company to hold the data of citizens of a country > >within its border, there isnt any law which can force these companies to > >hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would any such act > >perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the US gov? > > > > > >I am sure others may have other questions to ask these companies..... > > > >parminder > > > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Katitza Rodriguez > > > >International Rights Director > > > >Electronic Frontier Foundation > > > >katitza at eff.org > > > >katitza at datos-personales.org > >(personal email) > > > > > > > >Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom > >of speech since 1990 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From george.sadowsky at gmail.com Wed Jun 26 14:22:37 2013 From: george.sadowsky at gmail.com (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 14:22:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> Thank you, Suresh, I'm also heartened to see many of these names. They represent people who worked hard, on the ground, extending benefits of the Internet to everyone, and especially to people in developing countries and regions who needed it most to fight information poverty and to make a tangible contribution to economic and social development in those places. I don't think that they conceptualized the notion of stakeholder groups. They knew that there were real problems to solve, and they gave of their energies and often their careers to creating workable tools and solutions that would help to solve them. The world is better because of their efforts. Anriette has been a voice for progress and reason since we met almost 20 years ago. Although she is not a very frequent poster to this list, her contribution to development, individually and through APC, has and continues to be very significant. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from igcaucus > > I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being inducted this time. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Farber > Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > > Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history through their vision and determination > > Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. > > The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, and leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of an open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and work today. > > The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: > > Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the early design and development of the Internet: > > David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn > > Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach: > > Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales > > Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet: > > Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner (posthumous), George Sadowsky > > “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these individuals have pushed the boundaries of technological and social innovation to connect the world and make it a better place. Whether they were instrumental in the Internet’s early design, expanding its global reach, or creating new innovations, we all benefit today from their dedication and foresight.” > Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location of its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally scheduled for Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable environment. The ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, Germany and will also be live streamed at https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. > > More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including their biographies and photos, can be found atwww.internethalloffame.org. You can follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at @Internet_HOF. > > About the Internet Hall of Fame > The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a distinguished and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made significant contributions to the development and advancement of the global open Internet. More information on the program can be found at www.internethalloffame.org. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Jun 26 17:09:23 2013 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 07:09:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> References: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7B2E3FC29D244FAA9CE529A0C26A1677@Toshiba> The good thing about this list is the inclusion of many “non-establishment” names, as well as those closer to the technical community. While people like George and Dave Farber are thoroughly deserving, and I am glad to see their names there, it is good to see the inclusion of some more radical people like Aaron Swartz and John Perry Barlow, and also civil society people and APC pioneers (Anriette and Karen Banks). Good to see that the list is inclusive and broad. Ian Peter From: George Sadowsky Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 4:22 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; Suresh Ramasubramanian Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Thank you, Suresh, I'm also heartened to see many of these names. They represent people who worked hard, on the ground, extending benefits of the Internet to everyone, and especially to people in developing countries and regions who needed it most to fight information poverty and to make a tangible contribution to economic and social development in those places. I don't think that they conceptualized the notion of stakeholder groups. They knew that there were real problems to solve, and they gave of their energies and often their careers to creating workable tools and solutions that would help to solve them. The world is better because of their efforts. Anriette has been a voice for progress and reason since we met almost 20 years ago. Although she is not a very frequent poster to this list, her contribution to development, individually and through APC, has and continues to be very significant. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from igcaucus I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being inducted this time. --srs -------- Original message -------- From: David Farber Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) To: ip Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history through their vision and determination Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, and leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of an open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and work today. The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the early design and development of the Internet: David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach: Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet: Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner (posthumous), George Sadowsky “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these individuals have pushed the boundaries of technological and social innovation to connect the world and make it a better place. Whether they were instrumental in the Internet’s early design, expanding its global reach, or creating new innovations, we all benefit today from their dedication and foresight.” Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location of its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally scheduled for Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable environment. The ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, Germany and will also be live streamed at https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including their biographies and photos, can be found atwww.internethalloffame.org. You can follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at @Internet_HOF. About the Internet Hall of Fame The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a distinguished and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made significant contributions to the development and advancement of the global open Internet. More information on the program can be found at www.internethalloffame.org. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Wed Jun 26 18:12:54 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:12:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <11C2691E3ED547CE97BE94E9FE531D1A@well.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> <02a701ce7130$c072c900$41585b00$@jstyre.com> <11C2691E3ED547CE97BE94E9FE531D1A@well.com> Message-ID: <000301ce72ba$56711c60$03535520$@jstyre.com> Separate motions in FISC by both Google and Microsoft now are on the public docket, http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html My current WAG, now that there are 4 matters on the docket, not just 2, is that FISC doesn't post stuff to the public docket until, at a minimum, there has been some cursory review and an initial Order has been issued. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:59 PM > To: James S. Tyre > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'parminder' > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or > its legal ownership > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > > Oddly, Google's motion in FISC isn't on FISC's public docket, only > > ours and ACLU's. But then, FISC isn't used to having a public docket, > > it isn't exactly real time such as with PACER. (I've seen Google's > > motion, I know it exists, it just hasn't been docketed yet.) > > http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html > > Agreed. This is odd. I noticed it as well, but figured that they were just slow? > > > > Declan, did you take that pic of AT&T's Folsom St. facility in the > > last article you linked? I think one has to actually see the building > > in person to realize just how menacing it is, but that is a pretty > > good shot of it. '-) > > I did! It helps that it's less than a block from my office. :) > > -Declan > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From jstyre at jstyre.com Wed Jun 26 18:20:23 2013 From: jstyre at jstyre.com (James S. Tyre) Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:20:23 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <000301ce72ba$56711c60$03535520$@jstyre.com> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C83BC3.8030501@itforchange.net> <549EA8B44BA3447884784CF237C2B037@Toshiba> <9CA8C05376F847ECA3D08B1666A49E18@well.com> <02a701ce7130$c072c900$41585b00$@jstyre.com> <11C2691E3ED547CE97BE94E9FE531D1A@well.com> <000301ce72ba$56711c60$03535520$@jstyre.com> Message-ID: <001901ce72bb$6024fa50$206eeef0$@jstyre.com> My WAG was on the right track, but wrong. In each of the two newer motions, FISC issued an Order which, among other things, directed the Government to respond by yesterday as to whether there was anything classified in the motions, or otherwise shouldn't be made public. In each case, yesterday the government said (in effect) no prob, make it public. And so, in each case FISC did so today. -- James S. Tyre Law Offices of James S. Tyre 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) jstyre at jstyre.com Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of James S. Tyre > Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:13 PM > To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Declan McCullagh' > Cc: 'Ian Peter'; 'parminder' > Subject: RE: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or > its legal ownership > > Separate motions in FISC by both Google and Microsoft now are on the public docket, > http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html > > My current WAG, now that there are 4 matters on the docket, not just 2, is that FISC > doesn't post stuff to the public docket until, at a minimum, there has been some > cursory review and an initial Order has been issued. > > -- > James S. Tyre > Law Offices of James S. Tyre > 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 > Culver City, CA 90230-4969 > 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax) > jstyre at jstyre.com > Policy Fellow, Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance- > > request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Declan McCullagh > > Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 5:59 PM > > To: James S. Tyre > > Cc: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Ian Peter'; 'parminder' > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: PRISM - is it about the territorial > > location of data or its legal ownership > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 at 4:15 PM, James S. Tyre wrote: > > > Oddly, Google's motion in FISC isn't on FISC's public docket, only > > > ours and ACLU's. But then, FISC isn't used to having a public > > > docket, it isn't exactly real time such as with PACER. (I've seen > > > Google's motion, I know it exists, it just hasn't been docketed > > > yet.) http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/index.html > > > > Agreed. This is odd. I noticed it as well, but figured that they were just slow? > > > > > > Declan, did you take that pic of AT&T's Folsom St. facility in the > > > last article you linked? I think one has to actually see the > > > building in person to realize just how menacing it is, but that is a > > > pretty good shot of it. '-) > > > > I did! It helps that it's less than a block from my office. :) > > > > -Declan > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 27 01:08:19 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:38:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> References: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51CBC8C3.6000108@itforchange.net> Congrats Anriette and George..... On Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:52 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > Thank you, Suresh, > > I'm also heartened to see many of these names. They represent people > who worked hard, on the ground, extending benefits of the Internet to > everyone, and especially to people in developing countries and regions > who needed it most to fight information poverty and to make a tangible > contribution to economic and social development in those places. > > I don't think that they conceptualized the notion of stakeholder > groups. They knew that there were real problems to solve, and they > gave of their energies and often their careers to creating workable > tools and solutions that would help to solve them. The world is > better because of their efforts. > > Anriette has been a voice for progress and reason since we met almost > 20 years ago. Although she is not a very frequent poster to this > list, her contribution to development, individually and through APC, > has and continues to be very significant. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > >> Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members >> from igcaucus >> >> I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the >> internet in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, >> being inducted this time. >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: David Farber > >> Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) >> To: ip > >> Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees >> >> >> Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees >> Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history >> through their vision and determination >> Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany >> [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The >> Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who >> have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. >> Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global >> Internet, this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most >> influential engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. >> The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, >> innovators, and leaders from around the world who believed in the >> design and potential of an open Internet and, through their work, >> helped change the way we live and work today. >> The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: >> Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in >> the early design and development of the Internet: >> David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. >> Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii >> Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn >> Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding >> technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand >> the Internet’s reach: >> Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, >> François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard >> Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales >> Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who >> have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of >> the Internet: >> Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus >> Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry >> Leiner (posthumous), George Sadowsky >> “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and >> dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and >> CEO Lynn St. Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these >> individuals have pushed the boundaries of technological and social >> innovation to connect the world and make it a better place. Whether >> they were instrumental in the Internet’s early design, expanding its >> global reach, or creating new innovations, we all benefit today from >> their dedication and foresight.” >> Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the >> location of its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, >> originally scheduled for Istanbul, due to the recent protests and >> unpredictable environment. The ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August >> in Berlin, Germany and will also be live streamed >> athttps://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. >> More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including >> their biographies and photos, can be found >> atwww.internethalloffame.org . >> You can follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter >> at @Internet_HOF. >> About the Internet Hall of Fame >> The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been >> established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a >> distinguished and select group of leaders and luminaries who have >> made significant contributions to the development and advancement of >> the global open Internet. More information on the program can be >> found atwww.internethalloffame.org . >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Jun 27 01:13:20 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:43:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired as India's Permanent Representative to the UN. Wide asleep on the net *Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs **/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current architecture of global internet governance/ Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National Security Agency of the United States government have revived discussions about the need for democratisation of the current architecture of global internet governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding about preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and avoiding control of content, the current system is anything but any of these. Behind this veneer, the economic, commercial and political interests of a powerful group are sought to be entrenched. The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and other communications based on the internet every month, in the name of counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and Pakistan and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter of concern for India. Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be expected to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; after all, many of them depend on global internet majors for their business, and have always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. Whenever discussions are held on the subject, the former find ways of occupying the space and manipulating opinions that echo the interests of the latter. India called for democratisation of global internet governance and proposed in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, to deal with international public policies relating to the internet. Instead of discussing the pros and cons of different elements of the proposal, there was an orchestrated cacophony in the media designed to drown any reasoned debate. Calls were made to force India to withdraw the proposal. India’s proposal was characterised as catastrophic, threatening a “UN takeover of the internet”, and doomed to bring down Indian IT firms. India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance has been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for democratisation of global internet governance were made by then ministers Arun Shourie in December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in Tunis in November 2005, at the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). India pursued the implementation of the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the subject during the 2003 -05 period and the Tunis Agenda, which mandated that the “International management of the internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The report got implemented only in parts, through the setting up of the Internet Governance Forum whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised in recent months even by Western commentators and academics. The more important recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were buried deep, without any meaningful discussion of the options presented in the report. The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; substantially higher connectivity costs in developing countries located far from internet backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network stability and security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent and prosecute internet crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder participation; restrictions on freedom of expression; inconsistent application of privacy and data-protection rights; absence of global standards for consumer rights; insufficient progress towards multilingualism; and insufficient capacity-building in developing countries. The Indian proposal had only suggested that these very same issues, as well as policy issues that have evolved since WSIS, be considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the UN “take over the internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be overturned, as argued by the detractors. We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, India is sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the global rules for governance of the internet or management of critical internet resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another aspect that is seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European countries have with the current US-dominated model of global governance of the internet, as demonstrated by statements emanating from their officials, the number of legal disputes European bodies have launched against US internet majors, and attempts by countries like France to modify the existing system. Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and legal implications of the current model of internet governance had become quite apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange phenomenon and the WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of them. Concerns about shell companies and tax avoidance by global internet majors provide another instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third one. The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change in its policy even after the Snowden disclosures. Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning that Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors and that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. First, there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, independent of India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been demonstrating that they have more or less reached the maximum of the current models of their growth. Third, we need to work for the next generation of Indian IT companies, which can move up the value chain by creating their own branded services and products and leading global innovation in IT. In other words, we need to produce the next generation of Murthys and Premjis. This requires modifying the eco-system, architecture and infrastructure, both nationally and internationally, where such ventures can grow. This makes it imperative for India to become a lead player and shape the global ICT industry architecture that helps Indian ICT companies of the future. None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of democratising global internet governance and free ourselves from the current model where the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists for the current model of unilateral control. The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of WSIS in 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other leading democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the IBSA platform and with other like-minded countries in the UN for democratising global internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, transparent and democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda. The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to the UN *** On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen > realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of > what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated > society... And that the global civil society should pause, and > retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne > and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded > meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM > plus disclosures. > > Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the > present moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is > that we need to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil > society took the stance that less rather than more global IG is > better..... That was a mistake, and continues to be a mistake... > Internet is big, it is global, it transforms everything. And the > prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - governance of it > can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that - whether it > is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more global > IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will > involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil > society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, > unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... > > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around > it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I > think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, > Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN > General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, > participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by > the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how > intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how > how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... > > We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right > away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal > several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at > the global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD > level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the > right direction.... > > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some > real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been > around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes > privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly > were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. > Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... > > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak > about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these > guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC > list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data > retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. > ... What disclosures can and should the telecom and application > companies share about data hosting and transit, and applicability of > different jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We > need to drill down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens > only when there are clear focal points for policy development that > exist (See for instance the real work that is going on right now in > Marrakesh for writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed > material for the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen > the kind of joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy > dialogue forum.... We need to take preventive action against such > motivated obfuscations.... > > So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal > point for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real > norms, policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no > other option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they > exist.... > > parminder > > > > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org* >> >> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] >> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt >> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >> location of data or its legal ownership >> >> Dear Andrew >> >> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point >> Parminder raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring >> that human rights in the fullest sense of the term are not >> jeopardised at the deepest levels of the internet's architecture is >> one that indeed needs attention. However, the conversation so far is >> proceeding as if no work at all has been done around human rights >> norms and principles for the internet. This is not the case. A lot of >> work has been done, indeed stretching back many year into the WSIS >> period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came before we are all >> doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once remarked)! >> >> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do >> think it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and >> Principles already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I >> use the term advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason >> for the cautious approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was >> drafting this current version was precisely in order to be precise >> and coherent. Many people on all these lists were involved in this >> process and can share the credit for what has been achieved. The >> cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has paid off in retrospect. >> >> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on >> the online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the >> work of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin >> in turn, based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not >> intended to be a prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What >> was intended and to my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, >> inspirational framing for the work that is now emerging around >> specific cases and situations such as privacy, freedom of expression >> and so on that have been thrown into relief by the events around >> PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the responsibility >> of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events have >> underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and >> for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. >> >> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at >> least in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that >> these are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online >> and of course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in >> this respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP >> Charter in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker >> parts of the current Beta version >> (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen >> awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn >> organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in >> recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being >> done through Best Bits. >> >> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF >> agenda, here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as >> the APC Bill of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten >> Principles are intended as an educational, outreach version of the >> actual Charter. So here the work being initiated around Internet >> Goverance Principles (however defined) is something the IRP coalition >> supports implicitly. >> >> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to >> work together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way >> in establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. >> No need to reinvent the wheel in other words! >> >> best >> MF >> >> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >> >> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that >> the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a >> lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like >> the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone >> has done any detailed work on this in relation to >> security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically >> the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction >> (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German >> MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud >> distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. >> >> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder >> has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and >> principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the >> US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the >> internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where >> the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this >> something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? >> >> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: >> >> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy >> is important to maintaining personal security, protecting >> identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. >> >> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference >> with the right to privacy and should have the right to the >> protection of the law against such interference or attacks. >> >> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, >> except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally >> recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be >> consistent with international human rights laws and standards, >> the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the >> relevant purpose. >> >> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to >> personal information in all countries where they operate in order >> to protect the privacy rights of users. >> >> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy >> rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or >> regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with >> internationally recognized laws and standards. >> >> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is >> interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect >> privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach >> internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume >> everyone thinks that FISA does? >> >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >> >> Executive Director >> >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >> >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >> andrewpuddephatt >> *gp-digital.org* >> >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >> >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder >> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >> ; >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >> location of data or its legal ownership >> >> >> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist >> system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know >> that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery >> grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings >> of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know >> that the US establishement is their best political and legal >> cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, >> economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... >> It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been >> about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has >> been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken >> of here. >> >> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures >> that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism >> " >> led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... >> Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off >> the hook with respect to the recent episodes. >> >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, >> two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global >> Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place >> global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that >> will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us >> with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >> >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: >> >> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional >> issues: The answer is somewhat complex >> >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in >> the US by companies based overseas), the government has >> taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal >> processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) >> Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and >> regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the >> user is located. >> >> The legal standard for production of information by a >> third party, including cloud computing services under US >> civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law >> is whether the information is under the "possession, >> custody or control" of a party that is subject to US >> jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is >> physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, >> importantly, where the person whose information is sought >> is located. The issue for users is whether the US has >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, >> and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, >> custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests >> physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in >> which a large US-based company was loosely related to a >> subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary >> and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. >> >> >> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an >> European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the >> transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US >> borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the >> contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country >> claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps >> as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to >> European email could have carried classified information! >> Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have >> actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise >> illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into >> US borders. >> >> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in >> India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the >> largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT >> & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's >> global espionage (for instance see here >> >> )... Would all the information that AT & T has the >> "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter >> not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All >> this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the >> limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still >> need to ask a lot of questions from the involved >> companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. >> We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that >> everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from >> the fact that there are news reports >> >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US >> gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even >> simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not >> forget that many of these companies have strong political >> agenda which are closely associated with that of the US >> gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >> ', its >> revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its >> own aggressive regime change ideas >> . >> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA >> region, and not other things in the same region..... >> >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations >> to share data with US government extended only to such >> data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the >> US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal >> control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may >> reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, >> but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly >> from these companies.) >> >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that >> actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these >> companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and >> intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, >> not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For >> instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US >> authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other >> countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that >> many of the involved companies have set up near >> fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for >> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not >> do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets >> only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what >> they so very efficiently did for enhancing their >> bottom-lines? >> >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand >> that there can be some laws to force a company to hold >> the data of citizens of a country within its border, >> there isnt any law which can force these companies to >> hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the >> US gov? >> >> >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these >> companies..... >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Katitza Rodriguez >> >> International Rights Director >> >> Electronic Frontier Foundation >> >> katitza at eff.org >> >> katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email) >> >> >> >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990 >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Marianne Franklin >> Reader >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >> Goldsmiths, University of London >> Dept. of Media & Communications >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >> >> @GloComm >> https://twitter.com/GloComm >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> @netrights > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 27 01:22:29 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:52:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <13f84151224.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Thanks for sharing this. Looks like a further rebuttal of some long recycled canards is in order. Now for a letter to the editor of the indian express --srs (htc one x) On 27 June 2013 10:43:20 AM parminder wrote: > > From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired > as India's Permanent Representative to the UN. > > > > > Wide asleep on the net > > *Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs > **/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current > architecture of global internet governance/ > > Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National Security > Agency of the United States government have revived discussions about the > need for democratisation of the current architecture of global internet > governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding about > preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and avoiding > control of content, the current system is anything but any of these. Behind > this veneer, the economic, commercial and political interests of a powerful > group are sought to be entrenched. > > The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under > surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and other > communications based on the internet every month, in the name of > counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and Pakistan > and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter of concern > for India. > > Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be expected > to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; after all, > many of them depend on global internet majors for their business, and have > always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. Whenever discussions are > held on the subject, the former find ways of occupying the space and > manipulating opinions that echo the interests of the latter. > > India called for democratisation of global internet governance and proposed > in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for Internet-Related Policies > (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, to deal with > international public policies relating to the internet. Instead of > discussing the pros and cons of different elements of the proposal, there > was an orchestrated cacophony in the media designed to drown any reasoned > debate. Calls were made to force India to withdraw the proposal. India’s > proposal was characterised as catastrophic, threatening a “UN takeover of > the internet”, and doomed to bring down Indian IT firms. > > India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance has > been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for democratisation of > global internet governance were made by then ministers Arun Shourie in > December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in Tunis in November 2005, at > the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). India pursued the > implementation of the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance > (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the subject during the 2003 -05 period and > the Tunis Agenda, which mandated that the “International management of the > internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The report > got implemented only in parts, through the setting up of the Internet > Governance Forum whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised in > recent months even by Western commentators and academics. The more > important recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were buried > deep, without any meaningful discussion of the options presented in the report. > > The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the > internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and > systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over > allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about > application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; substantially > higher connectivity costs in developing countries located far from internet > backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure network stability and > security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent and prosecute internet > crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder participation; restrictions > on freedom of expression; inconsistent application of privacy and > data-protection rights; absence of global standards for consumer rights; > insufficient progress towards multilingualism; and insufficient > capacity-building in developing countries. The Indian proposal had only > suggested that these very same issues, as well as policy issues that have > evolved since WSIS, be considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the > UN “take over the internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be > overturned, as argued by the detractors. > > We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one > hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in > the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be > eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, India is > sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the global > rules for governance of the internet or management of critical internet > resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another aspect that is > seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European countries have with > the current US-dominated model of global governance of the internet, as > demonstrated by statements emanating from their officials, the number of > legal disputes European bodies have launched against US internet majors, > and attempts by countries like France to modify the existing system. > > Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and legal > implications of the current model of internet governance had become quite > apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange phenomenon and the > WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of them. Concerns about > shell companies and tax avoidance by global internet majors provide another > instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third one. > > The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the > current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic > and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change in > its policy even after the Snowden disclosures. > > Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning that > Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors and > that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of > democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. First, > there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, independent of > India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been demonstrating that they > have more or less reached the maximum of the current models of their > growth. Third, we need to work for the next generation of Indian IT > companies, which can move up the value chain by creating their own branded > services and products and leading global innovation in IT. In other words, > we need to produce the next generation of Murthys and Premjis. This > requires modifying the eco-system, architecture and infrastructure, both > nationally and internationally, where such ventures can grow. This makes it > imperative for India to become a lead player and shape the global ICT > industry architecture that helps Indian ICT companies of the future. > > None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of > people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific > community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and > define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of democratising > global internet governance and free ourselves from the current model where > the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists for the current model > of unilateral control. > > The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of WSIS in > 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other leading > democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the IBSA platform > and with other like-minded countries in the UN for democratising global > internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, transparent and > democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda. > > The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to the UN > > *** > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a keen > realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of what > could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated society... > And that the global civil society should pause, and retrospect. I see this > from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne and others - on diverse > issues, ranging from the recently concluded meeting of ITU WG on Internet > related public policy issues to PRISM plus disclosures. > > > > Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the present > moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is that we need to > get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil society took the stance > that less rather than more global IG is better..... That was a mistake, and > continues to be a mistake... Internet is big, it is global, it transforms > everything. And the prescription of less rather than more - appropriate - > governance of it can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept that > - whether it is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we need more > global IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global governance too will > involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, up to the civil > society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... Something, > unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... > > > > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and around it > a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I think > should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, Information and > Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN General Assembly, and > should be new age in its structure, form, participation avenues etc... And > this committee should be fed in by the IGF. Everyone who knows about the > OECD's CCICP, knows how intensively it works, and what quality of output it > produces, and how how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... > > > > We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, right > away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal several > times, but have have no real response on why such a body at the global > level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD level.... This > single step would go a long way it setting us on the right direction.... > > > > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some real > work.... not just the highest level principles that have been around but > seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes privacy principles > from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly were violated what what > Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. Right. We have provisions in the > IRP doc as well.... > > > > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak > about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these guarantees > operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC list that EU > does not subject data that is merely in transit to data retention > requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. ... What > disclosures can and should the telecom and application companies share > about data hosting and transit, and applicability of different > jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We need to drill > down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens only when there > are clear focal points for policy development that exist (See for instance > the real work that is going on right now in Marrakesh for writing out a new > treaty guaranteeing access to printed material for the visually > impaired).... We have on the other hand seen the kind of joke that the IGF > has rendered itself into as a policy dialogue forum.... We need to take > preventive action against such motivated obfuscations.... > > > > So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal point > for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real norms, > policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no other > option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they exist.... > > > > parminder > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding > >> > >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > >> > >> Executive Director > >> > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt > >> *gp-digital.org* > >> > >> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] > >> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 > >> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt > >> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; > governance at lists.igcaucus.org; irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location > of data or its legal ownership > >> > >> Dear Andrew > >> > >> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point Parminder > raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human > rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the deepest > levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs attention. > However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work at all has > been done around human rights norms and principles for the internet. This > is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed stretching back many > year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget or ignore what came > before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as a great sage once > remarked)! > >> > >> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do think > it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles > already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term > advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious > approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current > version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people on > all these lists were involved in this process and can share the credit for > what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at the time, has > paid off in retrospect. > >> > >> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing on the > online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work of > the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, based > on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a > prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to my > mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing for the > work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations such as > privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown into relief > by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful to include the > responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging norms. Events > have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth engaging in and > for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something quite remarkable. > >> > >> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at least > in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these are > very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of course in > person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this respect a great > way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter in substantive > terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of the current Beta > version (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen > awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn organizations. > A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in recent weeks and I > would like to add these moves to the work being done through Best Bits. > >> > >> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF agenda, > here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC Bill > of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are > intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So here > the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles (however > defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. > >> > >> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to work > together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in > establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No need to > reinvent the wheel in other words! > >> > >> best > >> MF > >> > >> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: > >> > >> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that > >> the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a > >> lot more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like > >> the idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone > >> has done any detailed work on this in relation to > >> security/surveillance and jurisdictional questions – specifically > >> the role of global companies rooted in one jurisdiction > >> (principally the US I would guess?). I note that some German > >> MPs are calling for US companies to establish a German cloud > >> distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. > >> > >> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder > >> has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and > >> principles pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the > >> US orbit – as long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the > >> internet into separate national infrastructures – which is where > >> the norms and principles need to be carefully defined. Is this > >> something we can discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? > >> > >> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: > >> > >> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy > >> is important to maintaining personal security, protecting > >> identity and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. > >> > >> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference > >> with the right to privacy and should have the right to the > >> protection of the law against such interference or attacks. > >> > >> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, > >> except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally > >> recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be > >> consistent with international human rights laws and standards, > >> the rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the > >> relevant purpose. > >> > >> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to > >> personal information in all countries where they operate in order > >> to protect the privacy rights of users. > >> > >> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy > >> rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or > >> regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with > >> internationally recognized laws and standards. > >> > >> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is > >> interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect > >> privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach > >> internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume > >> everyone thinks that FISA does? > >> > >> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL > >> > >> Executive Director > >> > >> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT > >> > >> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: > >> andrewpuddephatt > >> *gp-digital.org* > >> > >> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net > >> > >> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of *parminder > >> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 > >> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > >> ; > >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org > >> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial > >> location of data or its legal ownership > >> > >> > >> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist > >> system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know > >> that much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery > >> grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings > >> of the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know > >> that the US establishement is their best political and legal > >> cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, > >> economic, social and cultural capital in being the team leader... > >> It is an absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been > >> about. And this is what most global (non) Internet governance has > >> been about - with the due role of the civil society often spoken > >> of here. > >> > >> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures > >> that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism > >> > " > >> led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... > >> Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off > >> the hook with respect to the recent episodes. > >> > >> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, > >> two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global > >> Internet's architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place > >> global norms, principles, rules and where needed treaties that > >> will govern our collective Internet behaviour, and provide us > >> with our rights and responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. > >> > >> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: > >> > >> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > >> > >> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional > >> issues: The answer is somewhat complex > >> > >> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in > >> the US by companies based overseas), the government has > >> taken the position that it is subject to U.S. legal > >> processes, including National Security Letters, 2703(d) > >> Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and > >> regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the > >> user is located. > >> > >> The legal standard for production of information by a > >> third party, including cloud computing services under US > >> civil (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and > >> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law > >> is whether the information is under the "possession, > >> custody or control" of a party that is subject to US > >> jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter where the information is > >> physically stored, where the company is headquartered or, > >> importantly, where the person whose information is sought > >> is located. The issue for users is whether the US has > >> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, > >> and whether the cloud computing service has “possession, > >> custody or control” of their data, wherever it rests > >> physically. For example, one could imagine a situation in > >> which a large US-based company was loosely related to a > >> subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, > >> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary > >> and thus the data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. > >> > >> > >> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an > >> European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the > >> transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US > >> borders, Google would still be obliged to hand over the > >> contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country > >> claim that Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps > >> as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to > >> European email could have carried classified information! > >> Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have > >> actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise > >> illegal to access - information from beyond US borders into > >> US borders. > >> > >> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in > >> India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the > >> largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT > >> & T has been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's > >> global espionage (for instance see here > >> > >> )... Would all the information that AT & T has the > >> "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter > >> not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All > >> this looks like a sliding progression to me. Where are the > >> limits, who lays the rules in this global space.... > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still > >> need to ask a lot of questions from the involved > >> companies in terms of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. > >> We are being too soft on them. I refuse to believe that > >> everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from > >> the fact that there are news reports > >> > > >> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US > >> gov for different kinds of favours in return, or even > >> simply motivated by nationalistic feeling, we should not > >> forget that many of these companies have strong political > >> agenda which are closely associated with that of the US > >> gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas > >> ', its > >> revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its > >> own aggressive regime change ideas > >> . > >> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA > >> region, and not other things in the same region..... > >> > >> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations > >> to share data with US government extended only to such > >> data that is actually located in, or flows, through, the > >> US. Or, does it extend to all data within the legal > >> control/ ownership of these companies wherever it may > >> reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the former, > >> but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly > >> from these companies.) > >> > >> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that > >> actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these > >> companies, in face of what was obviously very broad and > >> intrusive demands for sharing data about non US citizens, > >> not simply locate much of such data outside the US. For > >> instance, it could pick up the top 10 countries, the data > >> of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US > >> authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other > >> countries that made no such demand? Now, we know that > >> many of the involved companies have set up near > >> fictitious companies headquartered in strange places for > >> the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could they not > >> do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets > >> only say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what > >> they so very efficiently did for enhancing their > >> bottom-lines? > >> > >> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand > >> that there can be some laws to force a company to hold > >> the data of citizens of a country within its border, > >> there isnt any law which can force these companies to > >> hold foreign data within a country's borders... Or would > >> any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an act by the > >> US gov? > >> > >> > >> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these > >> companies..... > >> > >> parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- >> > >> Katitza Rodriguez > >> > >> International Rights Director > >> > >> Electronic Frontier Foundation > >> > >> katitza at eff.org > >> > >> katitza at datos-personales.org > (personal email) > >> > >> >> > >> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and > freedom of speech since 1990 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- Dr Marianne Franklin > >> Reader > >> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program > >> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) > >> Goldsmiths, University of London > >> Dept. of Media & Communications > >> New Cross, London SE14 6NW > >> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 > >> > >> @GloComm > >> https://twitter.com/GloComm > >> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ > >> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communications/ > >> www.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > >> @netrights > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Jun 27 01:48:03 2013 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 10:18:03 +0430 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: <51CBC8C3.6000108@itforchange.net> References: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> <51CBC8C3.6000108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Congrats to everyone and especially Anriette and George! Best Fouad On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder wrote: > Congrats Anriette and George..... > > > > On Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:52 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: > > Thank you, Suresh, > > I'm also heartened to see many of these names. They represent people who > worked hard, on the ground, extending benefits of the Internet to everyone, > and especially to people in developing countries and regions who needed it > most to fight information poverty and to make a tangible contribution to > economic and social development in those places. > > I don't think that they conceptualized the notion of stakeholder groups. > They knew that there were real problems to solve, and they gave of their > energies and often their careers to creating workable tools and solutions > that would help to solve them. The world is better because of their > efforts. > > Anriette has been a voice for progress and reason since we met almost 20 > years ago. Although she is not a very frequent poster to this list, her > contribution to development, individually and through APC, has and > continues to be very significant. > > George > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from > igcaucus > > I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the internet > in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being inducted > this time. > > --srs > > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: David Farber > Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) > To: ip > Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > > Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees > > Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history through > their vision and determination > > Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany > > [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The Internet > Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been > selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their > groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s inductees > comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, > innovators, and entrepreneurs. > > The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, and > leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of an > open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and > work today. > > The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: > > Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the early > design and development of the Internet: > > David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. > Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku > Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn > > Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, > commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach: > > Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François > Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron Swartz > (posthumous), Jimmy Wales > > Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who have > made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet: > > Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus Hagen, > Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner > (posthumous), George Sadowsky > > “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic as > the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. > Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these individuals have > pushed the boundaries of technological and social innovation to connect the > world and make it a better place. Whether they were instrumental in the > Internet’s early design, expanding its global reach, or creating new > innovations, we all benefit today from their dedication and foresight.” > Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location of > its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally scheduled for > Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable environment. The > ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, Germany and will also be > live streamed at > https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. > > More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including their > biographies and photos, can be found atwww.internethalloffame.org. You can > follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at > @Internet_HOF. > > About the Internet Hall of Fame > The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been > established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a distinguished > and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made significant > contributions to the development and advancement of the global open > Internet. More information on the program can be found at > www.internethalloffame.org. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Thu Jun 27 05:06:24 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 14:36:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <13f84151224.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> <51CBC9F0.4070005@itforchange.net> <13f84151224.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> Message-ID: I just left this comment on the Indian Express website where it is currently awaiting moderation http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wide-asleep-on-the-net/1134254/4 -------- With respect - there are several issues (or shall we say, alternate perspectives) with this article that I would like to point out. So, before I begin, in the interests of full disclosure - My job role at my workplace absolutely does not involve internet governance issues, and while I work for an IT major, my involvement with internet governance and cybersecurity issues predates any industry job that I have been in. And here, I am speaking absolutely for myself. To start with, let me take issue with the "apologists who depend on global internet majors for their income". Tarring those who have an alternate perspective with a brush of "selfish commercial interest" is hardly the way to make your point. Despite any "orchestraed cacophony in the media",- the CIRP proposal could not find consensus among other governments either, and has since then been specifically disclaimed by Minister Pilot, who has rightly reaffirmed his commitment to a multistakeholder process, rather than one where control rests exclusively in the hands of an intergovernmental committee, with other stakeholders only present in an advisory capacity. An article in the Hindu "On Internet rules, India now more willing to say ICANN" published on October 13, 2012, describes how, after detailed inter ministerial and multi stakeholder consultation, and reaffirmed india's commitment to multistakeholderism. To quote Minister Pilot, Mr. Pilot also confirmed, “We are moving ahead with new proposals. While the existing system certainly needs to be changed, India’s position will include multi-stakeholder involvement and not inter-governmental bodies that may have been proposed in the past.” I also remember Minister Sibal reaffirming India's commitment to multistakeholderism at multiple venues (such as the recent East West Institute Cyber Summit in New Delhi, last October). In short, trying to resurrect a repudiated proposal like CIRP, which did not gain sufficient consensus either within India or among ITU member states, may not be the most productive way forward. In addition, though the ITU can and should play a vital role in engagement, over the past several years since 2007-08, it has steadily stepped away from a widespread advocacy of multistakeholderism (witness, for example, the collegial atmosphere created during their WSIS thematic meetings on C5 - cybersecurity, in those years - and the gradual detirioration of the beginnings of a cordial relationship with the multistakeholder community). Mr.Puri further states that US "hegemony over the Internet" leads to "a lack of accountability" in root zone operators, several of whom are not US based - and who have, to my personal knowledge, spent the past decades working very hard to maintain the security, stability and integrity of DNS, and who have engaged in substantial outreach to place mirrors of the root servers around the world, including several in India. Indeed, I am typing this from Chennai, with an instance (mirror) of the F root server located within a twenty minute walk from my residence. Most of the issues in India and elsewhere, with international connectivity being expensive, are, if I may refresh Mr. Puri's memory, more to do with the past history of telecom being a government monopoly in India, and with an long standing lack of awareness of best practices such as peering. This has gradually changed in the recent past with the NIXI (National Internet Exchange of India) set up in close cooperation with the GoI, indian ISPs as well as stakeholders from around the world. As for the lack of "multilateral mechanisms" to ensure network stability - this is also a multistakeholder effort that goes on every day. involving close "operational" coordination between people from across stakeholder communities including government organizations such as national CERTs and law enforcement, and multiple venues - none of which is, I regret to inform Mr.Puri, anywhere related to the UN, In fact if there's a problem with this, the problem is an absolute multiplicity of venues where such active cooperation takes place day in and day out. Indian organizations tend not to attend these for various reasons (possibly travel budget related - though I seriously doubt that there'd be a positive difference made in this regard by attempting to centralize governance of the Internet in Geneva, one of the most expensive cities in the world for visitors whose expenses are not borne by their national governments). So, organizations routinely make every effort to reach out to India. M3AAWG, the Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti Abuse Working Group, organized a day long event at the FICCI headquarters in New Delhi on the sidelines of the East West Institute Cyber Summit in October 2012, and has since then hosted local events to reach out to Indian ISPs, messaging and mobile providers and datacenter operators to spread awareness on best practices in spam control and cybersecurity. http://www.maawg.org/india/ for more details. As for the Budapest convention on cybercrime, it simply formalizes a setup that has existed as a set of mutual agreements (MoUs called MLATs, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties) among law enforcement bodies around the world, and is founded on a principle of dual criminality. Several countries have signed on to it in the years since its inception, and do have the option to sign on to only those specific terms from the convention that they are in agreement with. That is not the only reason India would not be declared a "data secure" country. There is no privacy law in India at this moment, though organizations from industry and civil society appear to be working on draft bills that can be circulated among lawmakers to gather support. Moreover, there is a widespread lack of privacy protection in practice, with data theft being rampant, as evidenced by everything from customer data of service providers ending up in the hands of telemarketers and spammers, to, in some cases, even street food vendors who can be found wrapping bhelpuri in credit card statements and photocopies of PAN cards. With respect, I will submit that it is in the public interest for India to crack down on such gross abuses of privacy - whether or not we meet the incidental goal of being declared a data secure nation so that EU based organizations can be allowed to outsource work here. In conclusion, we in India - across stakeholder communities, need to increase and broaden our level of engagement in the multistakeholder internet, across stakeholder communities instead of working towards a retrograde, silo'ed structure of internet governance. Thank you. --srs On Thu, June 27, 2013 10:52 am, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Thanks for sharing this. Looks like a further rebuttal of some long > recycled canards is in order. Now for a letter to the editor of the indian > express > > --srs (htc one x) > > > > > On 27 June 2013 10:43:20 AM parminder wrote: > >> >> From the Indian Express, of yesterday..... The author recently retired >> as India's Permanent Representative to the UN. >> >> >> >> >> Wide asleep on the net >> >> >> *Hardeep S Puri* Posted online: Thu Jun 27 2013, 05:15 hrs >> **/The Snowden revelations point to the urgency to overhaul the current >> architecture of global internet governance/ >> >> Disclosures by Edward Snowden of the PRISM project by the National >> Security >> Agency of the United States government have revived discussions about >> the need for democratisation of the current architecture of global >> internet governance. Notwithstanding the sophistry and grandstanding >> about preserving the multi-stakeholder model, freedom of expression and >> avoiding control of content, the current system is anything but any of >> these. Behind this veneer, the economic, commercial and political >> interests of a powerful group are sought to be entrenched. >> >> The US not only possesses the capacity to keep our citizens under >> surveillance, but in fact tracks telephone calls, emails, chats and >> other communications based on the internet every month, in the name of >> counter-terrorism. Being ranked fifth, bracketed with Jordan and >> Pakistan >> and ahead of Saudi Arabia, China and Russia, should be a matter of >> concern for India. >> >> Apologists among Indian IT majors and industry associations can be >> expected to rise in defence of the current model of internet governance; >> after all, many of them depend on global internet majors for their >> business, and have always spoken and acted on behalf of the latter. >> Whenever discussions are >> held on the subject, the former find ways of occupying the space and >> manipulating opinions that echo the interests of the latter. >> >> India called for democratisation of global internet governance and >> proposed in October 2011 the setting up of a Committee for >> Internet-Related Policies >> (CIRP), accountable to the United Nations General Assembly, to deal with >> international public policies relating to the internet. Instead of >> discussing the pros and cons of different elements of the proposal, >> there was an orchestrated cacophony in the media designed to drown any >> reasoned debate. Calls were made to force India to withdraw the >> proposal. India’s proposal was characterised as catastrophic, >> threatening a “UN takeover of the internet”, and doomed to bring down >> Indian IT firms. >> >> >> India’s policy on this subject of considerable strategic significance >> has been consistent for over a decade. The initial calls for >> democratisation of global internet governance were made by then >> ministers Arun Shourie in December 2003 in Geneva and Dayanidhi Maran in >> Tunis in November 2005, at >> the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS). India pursued the >> implementation of the report of the Working Group on Internet >> Governance >> (WGIG) chaired by Nitin Desai on the subject during the 2003 -05 period >> and the Tunis Agenda, which mandated that the “International management >> of the internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic”. The >> report got implemented only in parts, through the setting up of the >> Internet >> Governance Forum whose ineffectiveness has been increasingly recognised >> in recent months even by Western commentators and academics. The more >> important recommendations on dealing with public policy issues were >> buried deep, without any meaningful discussion of the options presented >> in the report. >> >> The WGIG had identified significant governance gaps with regard to the >> internet: these included unilateral control of the root zone files and >> systems and lack of accountability of root zone operators; concerns over >> allocation policies for IP addresses and domain names; confusion about >> application of intellectual property rights in cyberspace; >> substantially higher connectivity costs in developing countries located >> far from internet backbones; lack of multilateral mechanisms to ensure >> network stability and security; lack of effective mechanisms to prevent >> and prosecute internet crimes and spam; barriers to multi-stakeholder >> participation; restrictions on freedom of expression; inconsistent >> application of privacy and data-protection rights; absence of global >> standards for consumer rights; insufficient progress towards >> multilingualism; and insufficient capacity-building in developing >> countries. The Indian proposal had only suggested that these very same >> issues, as well as policy issues that have evolved since WSIS, be >> considered by the CIRP; it had not proposed that the UN “take over the >> internet”, or that the current technical arrangements be overturned, as >> argued by the detractors. >> >> We need to recognise the implications of the current model. On the one >> hand, India is asked to ratify the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, in >> the negotiation of which India played no part, in order for us to be >> eligible to be qualified as a “data-secure” country. On the other, >> India is >> sought to be excluded from any forum or deliberations where the global >> rules for governance of the internet or management of critical internet >> resources and logical infrastructure are evolved. Another aspect that >> is seldom appreciated here is the discomfort that European countries >> have with the current US-dominated model of global governance of the >> internet, as demonstrated by statements emanating from their officials, >> the number of legal disputes European bodies have launched against US >> internet majors, and attempts by countries like France to modify the >> existing system. >> >> Well before the Snowden disclosures, the security, socio-economic and >> legal implications of the current model of internet governance had >> become quite apparent. Just to take one example, the Julian Assange >> phenomenon and the WikiLeaks disclosures had amply demonstrated some of >> them. Concerns about shell companies and tax avoidance by global >> internet majors provide another instance. The use of Stuxnet was a third >> one. >> >> The US is clearly determined to continue its relentless pursuit of the >> current model of global internet governance, for preserving its economic >> and strategic interests. It is unlikely that there will be any change >> in its policy even after the Snowden disclosures. >> >> Some representatives of Indian industry associations have been warning >> that Indian IT companies are heavily dependent on global internet majors >> and that they will suffer by India’s championing of the cause of >> democratisation of internet governance. This lie needs to be nailed. >> First, >> there has been no evidence of any such impact. Second, independent of >> India’s proposal, Indian IT companies have been demonstrating that they >> have more or less reached the maximum of the current models of their >> growth. Third, we need to work for the next generation of Indian IT >> companies, which can move up the value chain by creating their own >> branded services and products and leading global innovation in IT. In >> other words, we need to produce the next generation of Murthys and >> Premjis. This >> requires modifying the eco-system, architecture and infrastructure, both >> nationally and internationally, where such ventures can grow. This >> makes it imperative for India to become a lead player and shape the >> global ICT industry architecture that helps Indian ICT companies of the >> future. >> >> None of this is going to be easy, however. We need a dedicated group of >> people — within the establishment, industry, technical and scientific >> community, academia, civil society and media — who can reflect upon and >> define India’s long-term interests in advancing the cause of >> democratising global internet governance and free ourselves from the >> current model where the space for discussion is arrogated by apologists >> for the current model of unilateral control. >> >> The UN has launched a process for observing the 10th anniversary of >> WSIS in >> 2015. This provides an opportunity for India to work with other leading >> democratic countries like Brazil and South Africa within the IBSA >> platform and with other like-minded countries in the UN for >> democratising global internet governance to make it truly “multilateral, >> transparent and democratic”, as envisioned in the Tunis Agenda. >> >> The writer, a retired diplomat, was India’s permanent representative to >> the UN >> >> *** >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 June 2013 03:54 PM, parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> While building on the past is important, I think, there is also a >>> keen >> realisation that we are passing - and mostly, missing - a series of >> what could be 'constitutional moments' for a new Internet mediated >> society... And that the global civil society should pause, and >> retrospect. I see this from emails of Gene, Andrew, Michael, Marianne >> and others - on diverse issues, ranging from the recently concluded >> meeting of ITU WG on Internet related public policy issues to PRISM plus >> disclosures. >>> >>> Let me try to pick what in my view are some 'big points' of the >>> present >> moment... and then drill downwards. The biggest I think is that we need >> to get over that age of innocence, whereby most civil society took the >> stance that less rather than more global IG is better..... That was a >> mistake, and continues to be a mistake... Internet is big, it is global, >> it transforms everything. And the prescription of less rather than more >> - appropriate - >> governance of it can only serve dominant interests. We need to accept >> that - whether it is human rights, or it is distributional issues - we >> need more global IG. And since Internet itself is new, its global >> governance too will involve many new elements. It is, to a good measure, >> up to the civil society to be innovative and brave in this regard..... >> Something, >> unfortunately, we have consistently shrunk from doing... >>> >>> First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and >>> around it >> a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal point I think >> should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, Information and >> Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN General Assembly, >> and should be new age in its structure, form, participation avenues >> etc... And this committee should be fed in by the IGF. Everyone who >> knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how intensively it works, and what >> quality of output it produces, and how how consultative, >> multi-stakeholder etc it is..... >>> >>> We simply must create a similar focal point at the global level, >>> right >> away..... Lets at least discuss it... I have raised this proposal >> several times, but have have no real response on why such a body at the >> global level is not appropriate, and why is it appropriate at OECD >> level.... This single step would go a long way it setting us on the >> right direction.... >>> >>> And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some >>> real >> work.... not just the highest level principles that have been around >> but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes privacy >> principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly were violated >> what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. Right. We have >> provisions in the IRP doc as well.... >> >>> >>> What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak >>> >> about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these >> guarantees operate, and the such. We were informed recently on the IGC >> list that EU does not subject data that is merely in transit to data >> retention requirements. How this obligation can be extended to others. >> ... What >> disclosures can and should the telecom and application companies share >> about data hosting and transit, and applicability of different >> jursidictions over the data they carry and process.... We need to drill >> down to such real issues. And that kind of thing happens only when >> there are clear focal points for policy development that exist (See for >> instance the real work that is going on right now in Marrakesh for >> writing out a new treaty guaranteeing access to printed material for >> the visually impaired).... We have on the other hand seen the kind of >> joke that the IGF has rendered itself into as a policy dialogue >> forum.... We need to take preventive action against such motivated >> obfuscations.... >>> >>> So, as I said, two things - (1) look for a real institutional focal >>> point >> for global IG, where all can participate, and (2), work on real norms, >> policy frameworks, in the manner OECD's CCICP does.... I see no other >> option... but as always wiling, to hear about them, if they exist.... >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday 26 June 2013 02:45 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Entirely agree Marianne – this seems a sensible way of proceeding >>>> >>>> >>>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> >>>> >>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >>>> andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org* >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*Marianne Franklin [mailto:m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk] >>>> *Sent:* 26 June 2013 08:30 >>>> *To:* Andrew Puddephatt >>>> *Cc:* 'parminder'; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; >>>> >> governance at lists.igcaucus.org; >> irp at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >>>> location >> of data or its legal ownership >>>> >>>> Dear Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> Have been following the conversation with interest. The point >>>> Parminder >>>> >> raises about the responsibilities of companies in ensuring that human >> rights in the fullest sense of the term are not jeopardised at the >> deepest levels of the internet's architecture is one that indeed needs >> attention. However, the conversation so far is proceeding as if no work >> at all has been done around human rights norms and principles for the >> internet. This is not the case. A lot of work has been done, indeed >> stretching back many year into the WSIS period. If we choose to forget >> or ignore what came before we are all doomed to repeat past mistakes (as >> a great sage once remarked)! >>>> >>>> With the Bali IGF as a venue for meeting and moving forward I do >>>> think >> it is important to note that the Charter of Human Rights and Principles >> already goes a *long* way in defining these 'global' (I use the term >> advisedly) norms and principles carefully. The reason for the cautious >> approach in 2010-2011 when the IRP Coalition was drafting this current >> version was precisely in order to be precise and coherent. Many people >> on all these lists were involved in this process and can share the >> credit for what has been achieved. The cautiousness then, criticised at >> the time, has paid off in retrospect. >>>> >>>> As a wide-ranging Charter of human rights and principles focusing >>>> on the >> online environment, then picked up by Frank La Rue thanks to the work >> of the then IRP Coalition Chairs, Lisa Horner and Dixie Hawtin in turn, >> based on the UDHR and its successors it was, and is not intended to be a >> prescriptive, or one-size-fits-all document. What was intended and to >> my mind has been achieved is rather a baseline, inspirational framing >> for the work that is now emerging around specific cases and situations >> such as privacy, freedom of expression and so on that have been thrown >> into relief by the events around PRISM. The IRP Charter is also careful >> to include the responsibility of companies as integral to these emerging >> norms. Events have underscored that the IRP Charter was a project worth >> engaging in and for that the 'we' on these lists did achieve something >> quite remarkable. >>>> >>>> Moving the IRP Charter up a level is a focus for two workshops at >>>> least >> in Bali, and the IRP Meeting there I would like to propose that these >> are very suitable places to continue these discussions, online and of >> course in person. The Best Bits meeting prior to the IGF is in this >> respect a great way to get started as the next stage of the IRP Charter >> in substantive terms gets underway i.e. addressing the weaker parts of >> the current Beta version >> (http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/site/charter/) and widen >> awareness amongst the human rights community and inter-govn >> organizations. A huge step in the latter has already been achieved in >> recent weeks and I would like to add these moves to the work being done >> through Best Bits. >>>> >>>> Finally, on principles seeing as this focus is also on the IGF >>>> agenda, >> here too the IRP Charter developed precursor models (such as the APC >> Bill >> of Rights, the Marco Civil principles too) the IRP Ten Principles are >> intended as an educational, outreach version of the actual Charter. So >> here the work being initiated around Internet Goverance Principles >> (however >> defined) is something the IRP coalition supports implicitly. >>>> >>>> The only question I am getting from members is about how better to >>>> work >> together, which is why the current Charter goes quite some way in >> establishing the sort of framework that is being advocated here. No >> need to reinvent the wheel in other words! >>>> >>>> best MF >>>> >>>> >>>> On 25/06/2013 17:59, Andrew Puddephatt wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Just welcoming Parminder’s focus on companies here. I feel that >>>> the current situation is an opportunity to push the companies a lot >>>> more rigorously than we have been able to do so far. I like the >>>> idea of global norms and principles and I wonder if anyone has done >>>> any detailed work on this in relation to security/surveillance and >>>> jurisdictional questions – specifically the role of global companies >>>> rooted in one jurisdiction (principally the US I would guess?). I >>>> note that some German MPs are calling for US companies to establish >>>> a German cloud distinct and separate from US jurisdiction.. >>>> >>>> I think we can strategically link the two issues that Parminder >>>> has flagged up – we can reinforce the push for norms and principles >>>> pointing out this is a way for country’s to escape the US orbit – as >>>> long as we can avoid the danger of breaking the internet into >>>> separate national infrastructures – which is where the norms and >>>> principles need to be carefully defined. Is this something we can >>>> discuss online and then discuss in person at Bali? >>>> >>>> Looking at the GNI principle on privacy it says: >>>> >>>> >>>> Privacy is a human right and guarantor of human dignity. Privacy >>>> is important to maintaining personal security, protecting identity >>>> and promoting freedom of expression in the digital age. >>>> >>>> Everyone should be free from illegal or arbitrary interference >>>> with the right to privacy and should have the right to the protection >>>> of the law against such interference or attacks. >>>> >>>> The right to privacy should not be restricted by governments, >>>> except in narrowly defined circumstances based on internationally >>>> recognized laws and standards. These restrictions should be >>>> consistent with international human rights laws and standards, the >>>> rule of law and be necessary and proportionate for the relevant >>>> purpose. >>>> >>>> Participating companies will employ protections with respect to >>>> personal information in all countries where they operate in order to >>>> protect the privacy rights of users. >>>> >>>> Participating companies will respect and protect the privacy >>>> rights of users when confronted with government demands, laws or >>>> regulations that compromise privacy in a manner inconsistent with >>>> internationally recognized laws and standards. >>>> >>>> Is this something to build upon? The final clause is >>>> interesting – it implies that signatory companies will respect >>>> privacy even when asked to comply with laws that breach >>>> internationally recognized laws and standards which I assume >>>> everyone thinks that FISA does? >>>> >>>> *Andrew Puddephatt***| *GLOBAL PARTNERS*DIGITAL >>>> >>>> >>>> Executive Director >>>> >>>> >>>> Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT >>>> >>>> >>>> T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: >>>> andrewpuddephatt *gp-digital.org* >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net >>>> >>>> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] *On Behalf Of >>>> *parminder >>>> *Sent:* 25 June 2013 09:25 >>>> *To:* bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>>> ; >>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>>> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial >>>> location of data or its legal ownership >>>> >>>> >>>> This is how I think it works overall - the digital imperialist >>>> system..... Global Internet companies - mostly US based - know that >>>> much of their operations worldwide legally are on slippery >>>> grounds.... They find it safest to hang on to the apron strings of >>>> the one superpower in the world today, the US... They know that the >>>> US establishement is their best political and legal >>>> cover. The US of course finds so much military, political, economic, >>>> social and cultural capital in being the team leader... It is an >>>> absolutely win win... That is what PRISM plus has been about. And >>>> this is what most global (non) Internet governance has been about - >>>> with the due role of the civil society often spoken of here. >>>> >>>> Incidentally, it was only a few days before these disclosures >>>> that Julian Assange spoke of "technocratic imperialism >>>> >> > es-dont-be-evil.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>" >>>> led by the US-Google combine... How quite to the point he was... >>>> Although so many of us are so eager to let the big companies off >>>> the hook with respect to the recent episodes. >>>> >>>> What got to be done now? If we indeed are eager to do something, >>>> two things (1) do everything to decentralise the global Internet's >>>> architecture, and (2) get on with putting in place global norms, >>>> principles, rules and where needed treaties that will govern our >>>> collective Internet behaviour, and provide us with our rights and >>>> responsibilities vis a vis the global Internet. >>>> >>>> But if there are other possible prescriptions, one is all ears. >>>> >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday 25 June 2013 01:04 PM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Monday 24 June 2013 08:18 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Only answering one of the questions on jurisdictional >>>> issues: The answer is somewhat complex >>>> >>>> >>>> if data is hosted in the US by US companies (or hosted in the US by >>>> companies based overseas), the government has taken the position >>>> that it is subject to U.S. legal processes, including National >>>> Security Letters, 2703(d) >>>> Orders, Orders under section 215 of the Patriot Act and >>>> regular warrants and subpoenas, regardless of where the user is >>>> located. >>>> >>>> The legal standard for production of information by a >>>> third party, including cloud computing services under US civil >>>> (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_45) and >>>> criminal (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_16) law is >>>> whether the information is under the "possession, custody or >>>> control" of a party that is subject to US jurisdiction. It doesn’t >>>> matter where the information is physically stored, where the company >>>> is headquartered or, importantly, where the person whose information >>>> is sought is located. The issue for users is whether the US has >>>> jurisdiction over the cloud computing service they use, and whether >>>> the cloud computing service has “possession, custody or control” of >>>> their data, wherever it rests physically. For example, one could >>>> imagine a situation in which a large US-based company was loosely >>>> related to a subsidiary overseas, but did not have “possession, >>>> custody, or control” of the data held by the subsidiary and thus the >>>> data wasn’t subject to US jurisdiction. >>>> >>>> >>>> Interesting, although maybe somewhat obvious! So, even if an >>>> European sends a email (gmail) to another European, and the >>>> transit and storage of the content never in fact reaches US borders, >>>> Google would still be obliged to hand over the >>>> contents to US officials under PRISM...... Can a country claim that >>>> Google broke its law in the process, a law perhaps >>>> as serious as espionage, whereby the hypothesized European to >>>> European email could have carried classified information! >>>> Here, Google, on instructions of US authorities would have >>>> actually transported a piece of classified - or otherwise illegal to >>>> access - information from beyond US borders into US borders. >>>> >>>> >>>> What about US telcos working in other countries, say in >>>> India. AT&T (through a majority held JV) claims to be the >>>> largest enterprise service provider in India. And we know AT & T has >>>> been a somewhat over enthusiastic partner in US's global espionage >>>> (for instance see here >>>> >>>> )... Would all the information that AT & T has the >>>> "possession. custody and control" of in India in this matter >>>> not be considered fair game to access by the US...... All this looks >>>> like a sliding progression to me. Where are the limits, who lays >>>> the rules in this global space.... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/24/13 5:28 AM, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> >>>> There was some demand on the bestbits list that we still >>>> need to ask a lot of questions from the involved companies in terms >>>> of the recent PRISM plus disclosures. We are being too soft on them. >>>> I refuse to believe that >>>> everything they did was forced upon on them. Apart from the fact that >>>> there are news reports >>>> >> > a-with-thousands-of-firms.html> >>>> that US based tech companies regularly share data with US gov for >>>> different kinds of favours in return, or even simply motivated by >>>> nationalistic feeling, we should not forget that many of these >>>> companies have strong political agenda which are closely associated >>>> with that of the US gov. You must all know about 'Google Ideas >>>> ', its >>>> revolving doors with US gov's security apparatus, and its own >>>> aggressive regime change ideas >>>> . >>>> Facebook also is known to 'like' some things, say in MENA >>>> region, and not other things in the same region..... >>>> >>>> Firstly, one would want to know whether the obligations >>>> to share data with US government extended only to such data that is >>>> actually located in, or flows, through, the US. Or, does it extend >>>> to all data within the legal control/ ownership of these companies >>>> wherever it may reside. (I think, certainly hope, it must be the >>>> former, but still I want to be absolutely sure, and hear directly >>>> from these companies.) >>>> >>>> Now, if the obligation was to share only such data that >>>> actually resided in servers inside the US, why did these companies, >>>> in face of what was obviously very broad and intrusive demands for >>>> sharing data about non US citizens, not simply locate much of such >>>> data outside the US. For instance, it could pick up the top 10 >>>> countries, the data of whose citizens was repeatedly sought by US >>>> authorities, and shift all their data to servers in other countries >>>> that made no such demand? Now, we know that many of the involved >>>> companies have set up near fictitious companies headquartered in >>>> strange places for the purpose of tax avoidance/ evasion. Why could >>>> they not do for the sake of protecting human rights, well, lets only >>>> say, the trust, of non US citizens/ consumers, what they so very >>>> efficiently did for enhancing their bottom-lines? >>>> >>>> Are there any such plan even now? While I can understand >>>> that there can be some laws to force a company to hold the data of >>>> citizens of a country within its border, there isnt any law which >>>> can force these companies to hold foreign data within a country's >>>> borders... Or would any such act perceived to be too unfriendly an >>>> act by the US gov? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I am sure others may have other questions to ask these >>>> companies..... >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >> >>>> Katitza Rodriguez >>>> >>>> >>>> International Rights Director >>>> >>>> >>>> Electronic Frontier Foundation >>>> >>>> >>>> katitza at eff.org >>>> >>>> katitza at datos-personales.org >> (personal email) >> >>>> >>>>>> >>>> Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and >>>> >> freedom of speech since 1990 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Dr Marianne Franklin >>>> Reader >>>> Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program >>>> Co-Chair Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (UN IGF) >>>> Goldsmiths, University of London >>>> Dept. of Media & Communications >>>> New Cross, London SE14 6NW >>>> Tel: +44 20 7919 7072 >>>> >>>> @GloComm >>>> https://twitter.com/GloComm >>>> http://www.gold.ac.uk/media-communications/staff/franklin/ >>>> https://www.gold.ac.uk/pg/ma-global-media-transnational-communicatio >>>> ns/ www.internetrightsandprinciples.org >> >> >>>> @netrights >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From Kivuva at transworldafrica.com Fri Jun 28 00:35:24 2013 From: Kivuva at transworldafrica.com (Kivuva) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 07:35:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees In-Reply-To: References: <8D75286C-BC2F-4F70-B658-C367810133BA@gmail.com> <51CBC8C3.6000108@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hard work and dedication is surely rewarded. This are giants in the techie and civil society field On 27/06/2013, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Congrats to everyone and especially Anriette and George! > > Best > > Fouad > > On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 9:38 AM, parminder > wrote: >> Congrats Anriette and George..... >> >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 June 2013 11:52 PM, George Sadowsky wrote: >> >> Thank you, Suresh, >> >> I'm also heartened to see many of these names. They represent people who >> worked hard, on the ground, extending benefits of the Internet to >> everyone, >> and especially to people in developing countries and regions who needed >> it >> most to fight information poverty and to make a tangible contribution to >> economic and social development in those places. >> >> I don't think that they conceptualized the notion of stakeholder groups. >> They knew that there were real problems to solve, and they gave of their >> energies and often their careers to creating workable tools and solutions >> that would help to solve them. The world is better because of their >> efforts. >> >> Anriette has been a voice for progress and reason since we met almost 20 >> years ago. Although she is not a very frequent poster to this list, her >> contribution to development, individually and through APC, has and >> continues to be very significant. >> >> George >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> On Jun 26, 2013, at 10:34 AM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: >> >> Congratulations to, among others, George and Anriette, two members from >> igcaucus >> >> I am also glad to see so many people from the earliest days of the >> internet >> in asia, active in the apricot asiapac regional conference, being >> inducted >> this time. >> >> --srs >> >> >> >> -------- Original message -------- >> From: David Farber >> Date: 06/26/2013 7:58 PM (GMT+05:30) >> To: ip >> Subject: [IP] Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees >> >> >> Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees >> >> Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history >> through >> their vision and determination >> >> Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany >> >> [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The Internet >> Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been >> selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their >> groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s >> inductees >> comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, >> innovators, and entrepreneurs. >> >> The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, >> and >> leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of >> an >> open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and >> work today. >> >> The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: >> >> Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the >> early >> design and development of the Internet: >> >> David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. >> Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku >> Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn >> >> Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, >> commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach: >> >> Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François >> Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron >> Swartz >> (posthumous), Jimmy Wales >> >> Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who >> have >> made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the >> Internet: >> >> Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus >> Hagen, >> Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner >> (posthumous), George Sadowsky >> >> “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic >> as >> the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St. >> Amour. “As some of the world’s leading thinkers, these individuals have >> pushed the boundaries of technological and social innovation to connect >> the >> world and make it a better place. Whether they were instrumental in the >> Internet’s early design, expanding its global reach, or creating new >> innovations, we all benefit today from their dedication and foresight.” >> Last week, the Internet Society announced plans to change the location of >> its 2013 Internet Hall of Fame awards ceremony, originally scheduled for >> Istanbul, due to the recent protests and unpredictable environment. The >> ceremony is now scheduled for 3 August in Berlin, Germany and will also >> be >> live streamed at >> https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/2013internethalloffame. >> >> More details on the 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees, including their >> biographies and photos, can be found atwww.internethalloffame.org. You >> can >> follow the Internet Hall of Fame on Facebook and on Twitter at >> @Internet_HOF. >> >> About the Internet Hall of Fame >> The Internet Hall of Fame is an annual awards program that has been >> established by the Internet Society to publicly recognize a distinguished >> and select group of leaders and luminaries who have made significant >> contributions to the development and advancement of the global open >> Internet. More information on the program can be found at >> www.internethalloffame.org. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor > My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > > -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva twitter.com/lordmwesh kenya.or.ke | The Kenya we know -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From meier-hahn at internetundgesellschaft.de Thu Jun 27 06:37:40 2013 From: meier-hahn at internetundgesellschaft.de (Uta Meier-Hahn) Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 12:37:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] CfP for Early Stage Researchers Colloquium on Internet & Society in Berlin - Nov 21, 2013 Message-ID: Hello! The following call for papers on Internet research might be of interest for some on this list. The submission deadline has been extended to July 11, 2013. If you have any questions regarding the topics, feel free to get in touch. I will oversee Track 2 on internet infrastructure, so naturally I will be especially happy about contributions to this topic. Best regards! Uta Meier-Hahn Doctoral Candidate | Policy & Governance at Alexander von Humboldt Institute For Internet And Society | http://www.hiig.de/en *************** CALL FOR PAPERS The Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society is sending out invitations for the annual colloquium to be held in Berlin on 21 November 2013. In cooperation with Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung we wish to gather together early stage researchers (Ph.D. candidates and post-docs) from all disciplines in order to push ahead with the discussion revolving around Internet research. The colloquium provides a stage for new perspectives on current issues of Internet and society. This year’s colloquium will consist of six thematically focused sessions. We cordially invite you to submit your research projects on one of the following six topics: Slacktivism, activism and protest online. Does the internet have what it takes to be political? Online activism is a widely debated topic. It raises the question as to which degree and under what circumstances online action is an effective part of political participation. This session welcomes submissions from both theoretical and empirical perspectives on various forms of online activism and political par¬ticipation online, for example online petitions or hacktivism. >From net neutrality to governance: Where are the points of entry to understanding present-day problems with Internet infrastructure? This session looks at the social implications of Internet architecture and maintenance regarding the process of rule-making, infrastructure and value as well as the role of regulation. Technical or structural approaches dealing with Internet exchange points, content delivery and intermediaries are welcome as well as theoretical viewpoints focussing on net neutrality or networking paradigms. Censorship and chilling effects: How does the law determine online behaviour? Notice and take down, online wire-tapping and mass automated online surveillance are widely discussed among scholars from various disciplines. This session aims to explore how these measures and the underlying law influence our online behaviour in both direct and indirect ways. It also provides a forum for discussing how these influences are to be evaluated from the point of view of fundamental rights. (Please note that submissions and presentations pertaining to this topic may also be in German.) Open Science – How does the Internet change knowledge creation and dissemination? The Internet changes established practices relating to academic knowledge creation and dissemination. This session focuses on questions concerning online collaboration and knowledge sharing, emerging publication forms and alternative impact measurements. Entries can also cover open data, crowdfunding for scientific projects, social networks for scientists and open research. Internet-enabled innovation – How does the Internet enable new forms of corporate goods, communication and interaction between consumers, stakeholders and companies? Consumers, companies and stakeholders are able to put their heads together virtually in order to discuss, to cooperate, to collaborate or to be creative. This session focuses on Internet-based collaborative innovation and provides a forum for researchers who address these issues with empirical, theoretical or application-oriented perspectives. Entrepreneurship – What are the hindering and promoting factors of Internet-enabled entrepreneurship? In recent years, Internet-enabled entrepreneurship has grown to become a considerable driver of innovation and growth. Our session focuses on the role and nature of entrepreneurial clusters, but also on the process of developing a business model and starting up an enterprise. All details can be found at http://colloquium.hiig.de/index.php/esrc/2013/schedConf/cfp ******************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From a.nouvet at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Jun 27 23:13:36 2013 From: a.nouvet at mail.utoronto.ca (Antoine Nouvet) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 03:13:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] Re: [RedLatAm] Surveillance discovered in Brazil In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3FD6B98800D983478127411D662551C565C32B95@BY2PRD0310MB388.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Any new developments on this? Saludos, Antoine ________________________________ De: redlatam-bounces at lists.accessnow.org [redlatam-bounces at lists.accessnow.org] en nombre de Carolina [carolina.rossini at gmail.com] Enviado: jueves, 20 de junio de 2013 03:27 p.m. Para: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; webwewant at googlegroups.com; ; Berkman Friends; redlatam at lists.accessnow.org; marcocivil at listas.ensol.org.br Asunto: [RedLatAm] Surveillance discovered in Brazil And without any social debate and oversight, ABIN (the Brazilian "intelligence" agency) joins the surveillance trend and sets last minute surveillance of social networks to discover and monitor protests in Brazil. More on the "mosaic" project at: (In Portuguese) http://www.estadao.com.br/noticias/cidades,abin-monta-rede-para-monitorar-internet,1044500,0.htm I will keep an eye on it. There is not much about it yet... Carol Sent from my iPhone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From toml at communisphere.com Fri Jun 28 11:12:50 2013 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:12:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org Fri Jun 28 15:39:48 2013 From: dsullivan at globalnetworkinitiative.org (David Sullivan) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:39:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online Message-ID: With apologies for cross-posting... http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online *Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online* *Date: *Friday, June 28, 2013 In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the United States and other governments to increase the transparency, oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions concerning communications surveillance. *GNI Principles and the rule of law * GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacyare rooted in international human rights law, while also recognizing that companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they operate. GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding the appropriate balance between security and privacy and free expression. But international human rights standards set out narrowly defined circumstances under which governments may restrict the rights to free expression and privacy.1 GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict the right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. This is a global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make clear the need for informed public debate on whether legislative and judicial oversight of surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is consistent with international human rights standards and the rule of law. The lack of transparency in the United States around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA Amendments Act and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the inability of companies to report on the requests they are receiving, make it difficult for companies operating in the United States to be transparent regarding their efforts to protect free expression and privacy. In light of this we call for three specific actions: *1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions to inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. * GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate declassification of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the FISC Court of Review. We recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC opinions may be necessary in some cases but believe that greater declassification will enable informed public debate as well as improve public oversight of the nature and the scope of the government’s use of FISA authorities. *2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national security demands. * While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of national security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure obligations imposed on companies who receive FISA orders and National Security Letters (NSLs). These letters effectively and perpetually prohibit companies from reporting even in general terms, after the fact, on the national security demands they receive. Policymakers should seriously consider reforms that would require government authorities to make a factual showing to the court to demonstrate that harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or renewal of gag orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders. *3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human rights online—should lead by example and report on their own surveillance requests.* GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalitionfor their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online and urges other governments to follow their lead. However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the example they set through their own domestic laws and policies. Contradictions between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other governments to support Internet freedom. GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We also urge them to make it legally possible for companies to report regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. Annual reports, such as the U.S. Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner offer a starting point for more comprehensive disclosure of information about the number of national security surveillance orders made and the number of persons affected. *Next steps* GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., on behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed global public debate on the balance between national security and privacy and freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency reforms as necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. All governments have a responsibility to work together with the private sector and civil society to determine the narrowly defined circumstances (based on internationally recognized human rights laws and standards) under which surveillance can take place. We will continue to push for this dialogue and press governments to meet their obligation to protect the rights of freedom of expression and privacy for people all over the world. 1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR). Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information . -- David Sullivan Policy and Communications Director Global Network Initiative Office: +1 202 741 5048 Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 PGP: 0x60D244AA @David_MSullivan GNI has moved, please note our new address: 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 Washington, DC 20036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Fri Jun 28 23:53:07 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 09:23:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> Message-ID: Very interesting! Given the person writing it, reads like the classic "I would like to direct the jury to retire to their chamber and reach a unanimous verdict of not guilty"... Ref (for those interested): http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/01/bofh_2009_episode_6/ -C On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee > to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - > http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html- might be of interest to the list. > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 03:03:01 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:33:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> Message-ID: <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce > Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - > http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html > - might be of interest to the list. The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... parminder > > Best, > > Tom Lowenhaupt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From nb at bollow.ch Sun Jun 30 03:14:03 2013 From: nb at bollow.ch (Norbert Bollow) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 09:14:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: [bestbits] PRISM - is it about the territorial location of data or its legal ownership In-Reply-To: <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> References: <51C83B77.1030206@itforchange.net> <51C85C4C.20905@eff.org> <51C94823.9050207@itforchange.net> <51C953C5.2060000@itforchange.net> <51CA986F.1000508@gold.ac.uk> <51CAC150.60205@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20130630091403.2931948d@quill.bollow.ch> Parminder wrote: > First of all, we urgently need an appropriate focal point - and > around it a webbed architecture - of global IG.... And that focal > point I think should be body like the OECD's Committee on Computers, > Information and Communication Policy, which can be attached to the UN > General Assembly, and should be new age in its structure, form, > participation avenues etc... And this committee should be fed in by > the IGF. Everyone who knows about the OECD's CCICP, knows how > intensively it works, and what quality of output it produces, and how > how consultative, multi-stakeholder etc it is..... I agree that there is a need for some kind of structure and process that takes the discussions at the IGF as an input and creates outputs suitable for direct feeding into the various institutions and processes that make policy decisions. Parminder's proposal is to model this on OECD's CCICP, while I'm proposing to model it on the IETF (details on WisdomTaskForce.org ) What are the advantages of each of the two approaches? I'd suggest that the more bottom-up “Wisdom Task Force” (WisdomTF for short) approach has the advantages of 1) a bottom-up organization being easier to create especially in the current climate where there is strong opposition of any organization that aims at strengthening global Internet governance (those who can expect to lose power when public interest oriented governance is strengthened, and their friends, are of course opposing), and 2) by modeling on IETF it is much easier to take the step of making all the important drafting processes 100% Internet based, which is necessary to ensure that those who don't have a travel budget can fully participate, and 3) further, by modeling on IETF it is easier to create a system and culture in which working group deadlocks (that can occur when in a working group there is too little fundamental agreement on objectives etc.) can be resolved by forking the working group if necessary. > And then, this is the second imperative, we need to go down to some > real work.... not just the highest level principles that have been > around but seem not to really work... For example, Andrew quotes > privacy principles from GNI document. Well, its provisions clearly > were violated what what Snowden tells us... So?? Nothing happens. > Right. We have provisions in the IRP doc as well.... > > What we need to do now is to move to the next serious level.... Speak > about actual due process, guarantees for transit data. how these > guarantees operate, and the such. +1 Greetings, Norbert -- Recommendations for effective and constructive participation in IGC: 1. Respond to the content of assertions and arguments, not to the person 2. Be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you accept -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 03:22:31 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:52:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51CFDCB7.8010501@itforchange.net> On Saturday 29 June 2013 01:09 AM, David Sullivan wrote: > With apologies for cross-posting... > > http://globalnetworkinitiative.org/news/transparency-national-security-and-protecting-rights-online > > *Transparency, National Security, and Protecting Rights Online* > > *Date: *Friday, June 28, 2013 > > In light of recent events, the Global Network Initiative calls on the > United States and other governments to increase the transparency, > oversight, and accountability of laws, regulations, and actions > concerning communications surveillance. > > *GNI Principles and the rule of law * > > GNI’s Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy > are rooted > in international human rights law, while also recognizing that > companies are compelled to obey domestic law in countries where they > operate. > One is still unsure about how much was it a 'compulsion' and how much was it voluntary..... See for instance slide number 5 in this news item http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/prism-collection-documents/ to quote "The seal of Special Source Operations, the NSA term /*for alliances with trusted U.S. companies*/. " (emphasis added) Now, "trusted US companies" looks like more than compelled US companies.... isnt it. And this is from official slides, and so obviously there are deeper US gov - US compaines connections than mere compulsion to obey domestic laws ... Also, I had asked, why when these companies can shift their accounting purpose headquarters outside US to avoid taxes, why cant they take their servers outside US to avoid FISA etc. for the sake of us, non US isans... parminder > GNI does not underestimate the challenge governments face in finding > the appropriate balance between security and privacy and free > expression. But international human rights standards set out narrowly > defined circumstances under which governments may restrict the rights > to free expression and privacy.1 > > GNI is particularly concerned by surveillance programs that restrict > the right to privacy in the context of inadequate legal safeguards. > This is a global problem. Recent statements by U.S. authorities make > clear the need for informed public debate on whether legislative and > judicial oversight of surveillance that occurs entirely in secret is > consistent with international human rights standards and the rule of > law. The lack of transparency in the United States around the Foreign > Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) interpretations of the FISA > Amendments Act and Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, as well as the > inability of companies to report on the requests they are receiving, > make it difficult for companies operating in the United States to be > transparent regarding their efforts to protect free expression and > privacy. > > In light of this we call for three specific actions: > > *1) Create a declassification process for significant legal opinions > to inform public debate and enable oversight of government actions. * > > GNI supports recently proposed legislation to facilitate > declassification of significant legal decisions by the FISC and the > FISC Court of Review. We recognize that unclassified summaries of FISC > opinions may be necessary in some cases but believe that greater > declassification will enable informed public debate as well as improve > public oversight of the nature and the scope of the government’s use > of FISA authorities. > > *2) Revise the provisions that restrict discussion of national > security demands. * > > While understanding the need for confidentiality in matters of > national security, GNI is deeply concerned by the nondisclosure > obligations imposed on companies who receive FISA orders and National > Security Letters (NSLs). These letters effectively and perpetually > prohibit companies from reporting even in general terms, after the > fact, on the national security demands they receive. Policymakers > should seriously consider reforms that would require government > authorities to make a factual showing to the court to demonstrate that > harm would result from disclosure, before issuance or renewal of gag > orders, or placing a specific time limit on those orders. > > *3) Governments—especially those already committed to protecting human > rights online—should lead by example and report on their own > surveillance requests.* > > GNI commends the 21 governments of the Freedom Online Coalition > > for their commitment to protecting free expression and privacy online > and urges other governments to follow their lead. > > However, the credibility of their efforts ultimately rests on the > example they set through their own domestic laws and policies. > Contradictions between countries’ domestic surveillance policies and > practices and their foreign policy positions on Internet freedom and > openness fundamentally undermine their ability to advocate for other > governments to support Internet freedom. > > GNI urges the governments in the Freedom Online Coalition to report on > the requests they make for electronic communications surveillance. We > also urge them to make it legally possible for companies to report > regularly to the public on the government requests that they receive > from law enforcement as well as national security authorities. Annual > reports, such as the U.S. Wiretap Report and the U.K. Government > report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner offer a > starting point for more comprehensive disclosure of information about > the number of national security surveillance orders made and the > number of persons affected. > > *Next steps* > > GNI will advocate strongly with all governments, including the U.S., > on behalf of these reforms, which are a prerequisite for informed > global public debate on the balance between national security and > privacy and freedom of expression rights. We view such transparency > reforms as necessary first steps in examining whether domestic law > adequately protects the rights to privacy and freedom of expression. > All governments have a responsibility to work together with the > private sector and civil society to determine the narrowly defined > circumstances (based on internationally recognized human rights laws > and standards) under which surveillance can take place. We will > continue to push for this dialogue and press governments to meet their > obligation to protect the rights of freedom of expression and privacy > for people all over the world. > > 1. Guidance on these circumstances can be found in Articles 17 and 19 > of the International Covenant on Civil and political Rights (ICCPR) > . > Further specific guidance is available in the Johannesburg Principles > on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information > . > > > -- > David Sullivan > Policy and Communications Director > Global Network Initiative > Office: +1 202 741 5048 > Mobile: +1 646 595 5373 > PGP: 0x60D244AA > @David_MSullivan > > GNI has moved, please note our new address: > 1200 18th St. NW, Suite 602 > Washington, DC 20036 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From tracey at traceynaughton.com Sun Jun 30 03:23:48 2013 From: tracey at traceynaughton.com (Tracey Naughton) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 17:23:48 +1000 Subject: [governance] Draft Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team Message-ID: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Dear IGC List, The NomCom for the 2013-14 Appeals Team seeks your feedback on the following criteria, for candidate selection: - interaction with the IGC List - experience in human resources/conflict management - technical knowledge related to IGC discussions - content of bio and CV - regional and gender balance - as per members of the current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate Let us know within 48 hours. Tracey Tracey, non-voting chair NonCom 2013-14 Appeals Team _______________________________ Tracey Naughton tracey at traceynaughton.com ------------------------------------------------------ Australia land line: +613 54706853 mobile: +61 413 019 707 skype: tnaughton9999 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com Sun Jun 30 03:40:09 2013 From: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com (Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:40:09 +1200 Subject: [governance] Draft Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> References: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: Dear Tracy, In my personal capacity, the criteria, really looks great! Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad On Jun 30, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Tracey Naughton wrote: > Dear IGC List, > > The NomCom for the 2013-14 Appeals Team seeks your feedback on the following criteria, for candidate selection: > - interaction with the IGC List > - experience in human resources/conflict management > - technical knowledge related to IGC discussions > - content of bio and CV > - regional and gender balance > - as per members of the current Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and non-voting, are not eligible to nominate > > Let us know within 48 hours. > > Tracey > > > Tracey, non-voting chair > NonCom 2013-14 Appeals Team > _______________________________ > Tracey Naughton > tracey at traceynaughton.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From chaitanyabd at gmail.com Sun Jun 30 03:45:29 2013 From: chaitanyabd at gmail.com (Chaitanya Dhareshwar) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 13:15:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: +1 On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Tracy, > > In my personal capacity, the criteria, really looks great! > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Tracey Naughton > wrote: > > Dear IGC List, > > The NomCom for the 2013-14 Appeals Team seeks your feedback on the > following criteria, for candidate selection: > > - interaction with the IGC List**** > > - experience in human resources/conflict management**** > > - technical knowledge related to IGC discussions**** > > - content of bio and CV**** > > - regional and gender balance**** > > - as per members of the current > Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and > non-voting, are not eligible to nominate > Let us know within 48 hours. > > Tracey > > > Tracey, non-voting chair > NonCom 2013-14 Appeals Team > _______________________________ > Tracey Naughton > tracey at traceynaughton.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Sun Jun 30 05:02:11 2013 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:02:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids Adam On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: > > > > > On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. > > The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. > > GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds > (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" > > (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " > > I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. > > > These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. > > Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... > > parminder >> >> Best, >> >> Tom Lowenhaupt > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ginger at paque.net Sun Jun 30 08:00:03 2013 From: ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 07:00:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Draft Selection Criteria: 2013-14 Appeals Team In-Reply-To: References: <9DF9D126-8557-4ADA-A76F-77DBB32C60D7@traceynaughton.com> Message-ID: Tracey and all, This looks great to me! Thanks for the clear guidelines. gp On 30 June 2013 02:40, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro < salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Tracy, > > In my personal capacity, the criteria, really looks great! > > Kind Regards, > Sala > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 7:23 PM, Tracey Naughton > wrote: > > Dear IGC List, > > The NomCom for the 2013-14 Appeals Team seeks your feedback on the > following criteria, for candidate selection: > > - interaction with the IGC List**** > > - experience in human resources/conflict management**** > > - technical knowledge related to IGC discussions**** > > - content of bio and CV**** > > - regional and gender balance**** > > - as per members of the current > Appeals team, the IGC Coordinators and the NomCom members, voting and > non-voting, are not eligible to nominate > Let us know within 48 hours. > > Tracey > > > Tracey, non-voting chair > NonCom 2013-14 Appeals Team > _______________________________ > Tracey Naughton > tracey at traceynaughton.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > Australia > land line: +613 54706853 > mobile: +61 413 019 707 > skype: tnaughton9999 > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > 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: > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From suresh at hserus.net Sun Jun 30 09:16:37 2013 From: suresh at hserus.net (Suresh Ramasubramanian) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 18:46:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Fwd=3A_=5Bindia-gii=5D_=28Quartz=29_India?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=99s_new_surveillance_network_will_make_the_NSA_green_wit?= =?UTF-8?Q?h_envy?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <13f953a3f8d.2728.4f968dcf8ecd56c9cb8acab6370fcfe0@hserus.net> --srs (htc one x) --- Forwarded message --- From: Manish Malik Date: 30 June 2013 4:22:02 PM Subject: [india-gii] (Quartz) India’s new surveillance network will make the NSA green with envy To: "india-gii at india-gii org" Quartz has a post today on India's CMS: http://qz.com/99019/no-call-email-or-text-will-be-safe-from-indias-surveillance-network/ "*The CMS, by contrast, will give nine Indian government agencies—including the tax department—the power to access, in real-time, phone conversations, video conferences, text messages, emails, and even internet search data and social media activity, and will work without any independent oversight, Reuters reports; the agencies can start monitoring targets without the approval of the courts or the parliament. The top bureaucrat in charge of the federal interior ministry and selected state-level officials will reportedly be authorized to approve surveillance requests.*" Best, Manish -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Jun 30 10:25:40 2013 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:55:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51D03FE4.7030106@itforchange.net> On Sunday 30 June 2013 02:32 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c > > http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids Thanks for this... So sense has finally prevailed and the chapter of closed generics (.book etc being given as closed/ private gtlds to the Amazon company and the such) is, well, closed.... This is one of the most important pieces of information to come out of the domain name governance system for a long while.... Wonder, why the ICANN system/ community is so shy to share such real news of real concern to people..... I mean, I am on so many IG lists, and I hadnt heard about it.... (While one keeps hearing about all kinds of matters of 'form' - which meeting will be held and in which manner - a truly post modern scenario where 'form' seems to have entirely overtaken all concern for 'substance'.) Although, one can see why the ICANN system/ community might be a bit shame faced about it... Finally, it was clearly some extraneous factors that led to stopping of what would have been a loot of generic words by a few big corporations, already big enough, and dominating so many essential aspects of our digital lives, to be able to make solid capital out of exclusive digital ownership of these generic words which were supposed to be gifted to them by ICANN... (BTW, I wrote an op ed on the subject a few months back, which was followed by an editorial by the same newspaper.) So, now that the decision has been taken, we can turn our attention to the process.... One still isnt sure who is the real decision maker in the ICANN system... Basically the board? Which decides after taking an ad hoc stock of how the big powers - commercial and governmental (very importantly, the US) - are placed? And the board itself is selected largely by a hardly democratic nomcom process..... What of all the, so so celebrated, bottom up process, which in the present case so abjectly surrendered to big commercial interests. It completely failed to stop the generic words loot. It is this 'failure' in an area of work output which is central to domain name governance system that holds some very important lessons for us. And most of the civil society - if not all - involved in the ICANN system was complicit in it - I mean either actively supported, or simply went along with the closed generics proposal. Would this civil society - persons and groups - explain their stand and justifications to us, especially now that despite them we have been saved the loot of generic words in their digital address forms? Also, a pity that IGC never discussed this key substantive issue related to ICANN, while form related matter of ICANN are frequently discussed. Maybe, now we can discuss it as a post mortem. parminder > > Adam > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. >> The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. >> >> GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds >> (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" >> >> (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " >> >> I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. >> >> >> These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. >> >> Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... >> >> parminder >>> Best, >>> >>> Tom Lowenhaupt >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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 From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Jun 30 11:18:51 2013 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 30 Jun 2013 12:18:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Letter from U.S. Senator Rockefeller to ICANN on new TLDs In-Reply-To: <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> References: <51CD0257.5010006@communisphere.com> <51CDA7F2.6030309@communisphere.com> <51CFD825.7040809@itforchange.net> <9D6D47CA-B4A4-41DA-AEFB-C198D0F49A0D@glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: <51D04C5B.5090105@cafonso.ca> Oh, OK, if Icann is "thinking" about it, problem solved :) --c.a. On 06/30/2013 06:02 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > ICANN board's New gTLD Program Committee has been thinking about these issues. See > > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-25jun13-en.htm#2.c > > http://domainincite.com/13558-icann-freezes-closed-generic-gtld-bids > > Adam > > > On Jun 30, 2013, at 4:03 PM, parminder wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> On Friday 28 June 2013 08:42 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: >>> This letter from Senator Jay Rockefeller, chair of the Commerce Committee to ICANN's Dr. Steven D. Crocker - http://images.politico.com/global/2013/06/26/rockefeller_letter_to_icann.html - might be of interest to the list. >> >> The senator's letter makes some very important points. Although it comes mostly from trademark owners' point of view while the problems in the new round of gTLDs associated with general community ownership of linguistic terms are underplayed, but that is perhaps expected from a mainstream US politician. >> >> GAC in their communiqué at the end of Beijing ICANN meeting proposed two very important things with regard to new gtlds >> (1) "For strings representing generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest goal" >> >> (2) "Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in a way that is consistent with applicable laws (and)... establish a working relationship with the relevant regulatory....bodies " >> >> I think civil society groups like the IGC should endorse these very important 'advices' which have a far reaching implication vis a vis how domain names allocation system functions.... Purely as a highest-bidder, market based system, or as a public interest oriented governance system. >> >> >> These 'advices" represent the abject failure of the ICANN system to meet public interest requirements concerned with its global governance functions..... And I see this failure as kind of systemic. ICANN has somehow organised itself to *not* be able to address real world public interest issues, despite committees over committees over independent experts that it may designate on any issue - as it of course did it on the new gTLDs issue. >> >> Now, if you ask anyone on the street what does ICANN do, one is likely to say, if at all recognising the organisation, that it allocates top level domain names like .com..... and to that extent the new round of gTLDs represent ICANN's basic function.... and that it failed so miserably to address and uphold key public interest issues in terms of its basic function says a lot about the ICANN governance paradigm... >> >> parminder >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Tom Lowenhaupt >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- ____________________________________________________________ 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