From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Apr 1 10:16:00 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:16:00 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Summary of input: Consultations on paragraph 93(a) of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation Message-ID: Dear all, For those following the discussions on the IGF+ model, including the proposal for a 'MHLB', please find below a summary of input the Secretariat's prepared following the recent consultation period which ran between February 24- 09 March. https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/11138/2490 The list of inputs is here: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/93a-public-responses Best Sheetal -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Apr 1 13:55:51 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 17:55:51 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here deal "with the fundamentals if internal governance". MM: I assume you mean "fundamentals of Internet governance..." If so, yes, I think it's good, that's why we bother to do this. Let me add that the sharpness of our disagreements stem from my sincere belief that the policies and institutional changes you advocate would be harmful (and you no doubt feel the same) but this should not detract from my appreciation of your ability to raise these fundamental issues and to put it in a historical context that goes back to WSIS. P: I did not think I would need to argue, that too with a prof of public policy, such well-established principles of public governance and policy making in general, and global levels of them in particular, like what are the canons of funding public governance and policy making, and what indeed is the current role of global governance as we know it. MM: Yeah, I will pass over your attempts to lecture me about what a professor of PP should know and what you consider "well-established principles of public governance." This kind of posturing just makes you look boastful and ignorant and basically begs the questions we are trying to debate. As you will see as we dig in to the substantive arguments. MM: In my initial message, I said that your rejection of parity among government and private sector stakeholders revealed a rejection of the multi-stakeholderism and indicated your support for a state-led, state-dominated system of global IG. I noted that these principles of parity are characteristic of the governance of Internet identifiers (names and addresses) and routing and connectivity, and seems to be working well. Your response: P: You have most conveniently avoided the matter of OCED's CDEP (committee on digital economy policy) entirely, when it was a big and one of the most important part of my email. MM: Yes, I did not respond about OECD because your message about it was confused. On the one hand you were saying it is a "colonial" entity, on the other hand you were incorrectly saying it is multistakeholder as ICANN or RIRs, and on the third hand (nice of you to have three hands, by the way) you were holding it up as a model for global internet governance. But I think this is clarified now. MM: The OECD is an intergovernmental organization that fosters policy research and promotes cooperation in policy among its member states. It does not make global public policy, in the sense that it can formally enact and enforce anything, only its member states can do that. It describes its own output as "guidelines" or what IR/political science people would call norms. It has incorporated input from labor stakeholders for some time, and around 2005 or 2006, it began to incorporate civil society input in a more formalized way. But nongovernmental stakeholders have no formal decision making power over what OECD does. So when you say, P: I not only fully accept the multistakeholder model that OECD employs for its digital policy making, I and the networks that I work with have officially sought as 'the exact same model' for the global or the UN level, and developing countries have officially sought in UN committees and the UN GA 'the exact same model' for the global or the UN level MM...you are proving my point: you reject the globalized, multistakeholder model in which civil society and the private sector have parity and you want a state-led system. Let me add that the fact that OECD calls itself "multistakeholder" (MS from now on) doesn't prove anything other than that people use the MS word in different ways. The ITU also calls itself MS. The MS label has some cachet and makes the organization seem open. Perhaps a better word for the difference in the models is sovereignty-based or not. I support a global public policy emerging from an open, global, multistakeholder regime in which the actual public, not just states, are directly making policy. You want a state-led policy and thus are fundamentally a conservative supporting traditional governance mechanisms of the past two centuries. P: And sure enough, you consistently refuse to let us know why you support the OECD's CDEP's policy work, but wont support a similar (exact cut paste) model at the global level, and how doing that is not a colonial attitude? I still look forward to your response to this central question. MM: I never said OECD is a model for global IG. IGP has participated, to some degree, in OECD's openness to civil society input, but we have never "supported" it as a model for global IG. And OECD's research reports are very good, very useful, so in that sense I support it. But it's not "policy development" work in the sense we are debating; it's just a government- (and partially privately-) funded think tank. And one of the reasons OECD works smoothly is that it is indeed a smaller club of like-minded states. This is not to say it couldn't be more inclusive, but realistically making it bigger will also make it more difficult to achieve consensus. This is standard collective action theory, look into it. There are also clubs of developing or non-western states, e.g. SCO, APEC, etc. Governments sort themselves into clubs for a reason. Look into it. P: As a professor of public policy you surely know that public policy functions cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private funds. This is a bizarre argument from authority, when in fact you are not an authority, not a professor of public policy, you have no formal education or research credentials in that area, so I don't know where you get these absolutist notions. Maybe do a little more investigation, both contemporary and historical. Ask yourself things like, "does the ITU-T's financing of its standardization process by selling expensive documents to private telcos and charging 5-figure sector membership fees constitute public or private funding? Are you aware of the fact that the Gates Foundation donated $530 million to the World Health Organization, or 12% of its budget? Should they give the money back? Is WIPO's reliance on patent registration fees public or private funding? At the global level, public funds are the proportionate contributions that countries make to the UN fund. I remain fully and consistency of the view that any UN based global public policy functions can and should only be funded from this pool of funds. In the same way as it will be scandalous to involve private funding for any public policy function in the US. Or do you disagree? Again, your lack of knowledge of actual public policy processes is showing. You are advancing a very simplistic sovereigntist argument about international institutions. You have an idealized, ahistorical notion of the public/private distinction and view public funds (which are inevitably gained through taxation or expropriation of private actors, and thus are highly dependent on the private economy) as some sacrosanct, disinterested source of funds. This underestimates the self-interest of state bureaucracies, among other flaws, but I really don't have time to engage in further education of you. Let's focus instead on what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make? As I understand it, you are saying that any contribution of private funds to support the IGF is "scandalous." This ignores several salient points, some of which were raised on my last message and never answered: - What if governments are unwilling or unable to provide the needed funds but the community of actors involved can raise their own (private) funds? - Don't national governments also have key geopolitical interests in internet governance and wouldn't they be able to use their funding as leverage? Why isn't this "scandalous"? - If private sectors funds are sufficiently diversified, can bad influence be mitigated? P: Even for supra-national level policy making, lets take the OECD example again .. Let some of guys who freely advocate that global level public policy making (because it invokes those poor, undependable, developing countries) MM: I have not seen anyone here make an argument that corporate funding is needed because of poor, undependable developing countries. I do see concerns that funding for IGF from _all_ governments can be undependable or inadequate, or geopolitically biased. MM: I am certainly aware of the problem of corruption or bias of public governance functions by private funds or private influence. But with your devotion to nation-state funding and the sovereign system, you seem incredibly unaware of how the same problem exists with state funding. Indeed, state funding and influence can actually be more "colonial" than the alternative, because who except for the richest and most powerful countries are most likely to fund and participate in international institutions? And that includes rich non-white countries with their own empires and forms of colonialism, such as China. Are you really unaware of the extent to which international institutions reinforce or maintain the hegemony of colonial powers? Read some history. MM: You would like to present this as a polar choice, due to your anti-private sector, anti-business ideology. Either we are entirely state-dominated and funded, or entirely private. But that is not the choice we have. Public governance institutions ALWAYS involve buy-in and support from private stakeholders if they are to function at all, just as private sector market interactions require publicly formulated and impartially enforced rules. The problem in the IG space is that internet connectivity is transnational and non-territorial, and there is a mismatch between the territorial nation-state system of governance and the globally connected users and suppliers in the internet economy. Traditional intergovernmental institutions are therefore poor and even fundamentally unjust representatives of the policy making needs of cyberspace. So we have to develop new institutions. It is a never-ending source of amusement to me that the folks who think they are radical, progressive lefty types have for the past 20 years been conservative defenders of traditional territorial nation-state governance P: As I said, I mean by democratic the system employed by the OECD for supra-national digital policy making. MM: This is not democratic, this is delegation by nation-states, with very thin, long-stretched lines back to democratically elected governments in some cases, and involving _entirely undemocratic_ states in many others. Further: OECD does not make supra-national policy. It is simply a club for a subset of nation-states to (at best) coordinate their own national policies and (most of the time) do research on policy. In a global polity, a system of representation that relies on territorial nation states is not democratic, both because the public is not confined to geographic spaces, and because at least half of the governments are not democratic. P: As someone who claims expertise in global governance matters, I would have expected you to know the history of how much agreement on rights, law, political economy and economic policy has actually been managed by UN based bodies over the last any decades. MM: Ah yes, this is why Internet censorship has ceased to exist. All governments are adhering religiously to Article 19 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and if they don't, these UN bodies send in international police forces to enforce the international law, and haul them before international courts to....oh wait, I am not describing reality, am I? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 1 15:38:59 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 15:38:59 -0400 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: FWIW in yesterday's chat Brad Smith also called for regulation, comparing it to finance in the 1930s. https://ia801508.us.archive.org/21/items/sipa-gdf2021-2/sipa-gdf2021-2_TRANSCRIPT.pdf "One thing I think is happening, when you really step back, is, I think, the 2020s are going to do for digital services what the 1930s did for financial services. The 1930s remade the regulation of financial services, and they went from largely being unregulated to operating in the context of markets that were governed by new laws and new rules. It's odd to hear somebody from an industry that will be regulated say, well, maybe that's not such a bad thing, but I will say, maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe the key for healthy markets in the long term, and more important than that, maybe what is fundamental for the preservation of democracy, is some more rules than we've had over the last few decades." -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 2 03:48:14 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:18:14 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 01/04/21 11:25 pm, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > I begin from this point of agreement that the issues here deal "with > the fundamentals if internal governance". > > MM: I assume you mean “fundamentals of Internet governance…” If so, > yes, I think it’s good, that’s why we bother to do this.  Let me add > that the sharpness of our disagreements stem from my sincere belief > that the policies and institutional changes you advocate would be > harmful (and you no doubt feel the same) but this should not detract > from my appreciation of your ability to raise these fundamental issues > and to put it in a historical context that goes back to WSIS. > Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. At this stage I will try and focus on issues in a few clear buckets. 1. The OECD model of digital policy making: There are a few arguments and clams you are making in this regard. One, that the OECD model is not a multistakeholder model of digital policy making in your view, even if OECD and ISOC etc call it multistakeholder, and therefore you really do not approve of it. You could be clearer and more upfront about such disapproval, here, and when you/IGP has interacted at numerous occasions with OCED's digital policy making. You seem to now be disapproving it only when pushed into an argumentative corner, but well, good enough -- we take it that you disapprove of the OCED model of digital policy making. Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to let us know their views on that model, clearly and upfront. I repeat; to support and work with the OECD's CDEP and oppose a similar body in the UN is both feudal (bec the OECD is a bunch of richest countries exercising political power over the rest of the world) as it is colonial (OECD being dominated by western nations). This is extremely relevant to activity and advocacy with regard to models of global digital policy making. It wont do to keep ignoring this all important question, which most of them have avoided for over a decade now. You owe it to the global public to put forward your views clearly on this matter -- especially now that you propose a new system of global digital public policy development. Thanks. Meanwhile, Milton, unfortunately, you also again slip back to saying in your below email that 'OECD does not make supra-national policy' , which is completely a untruth. (For instance, see this . ) I do not know what more can I do than what I already did -- linked to the page on OECD's legal instruments , enclosed as I did earlier a document on an informal WG for drafting a possible legal instrument on access to private data, etc. It also does not impress you that OECD's various documents not only explicitly talk about OECD's policy function, but also lay out OECD's policy making process. OECD also makes model laws .. I cant do anything more on this .... Meanwhile, I have also said that (1) in any case, UN organisations too do nothing more that all these OECD activities that I list here etc, and (2) Whatever OECD and UN do or do not do, can we agree on the same model as the OECD one for the global level too, whereby you meekly loop back to the earlier logic above that you do not approve of OECD model even, although you neither say it clearly, nor put such opposition in action, say, by not working with OCED or actively writing articles and letters opposing OECD model of digital policy making. 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per you: You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR governance (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital issues, and rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we can include platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. Right. I now understand, though once again you state is very mutely, that you would like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, and other digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is governed Right? You need to be clear and upfront about what is the model you propose for global governance of these non-CIR digital issues -- because that is what is at the centre of this discussion. From your below email I take it that you want the ICANN model, or similar, for governance of platforms, social media, data, AI etc as well. ICANN governance model is dominated by the domain name industry, with some peep in for civil society and governments Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... BTW if you really believe in this model, pray why haven't you advocated it for digital policy making in the US, and for the OECD  .... I understand that you wish to avoid the universal ridicule that you would immediately face among quarters that cant rub on the wrong side, and need to keep a reputation among ..... Which is why I ask, why tell all this to us, poor, developing countries? This is what is both colonial, and intellectually confused ( i do not want to say, dis-honest) in this .. 3 Appropriate funding of public policy bodies: Like the absolute untruth that 'OECD does not make supra-national policy' which assertion of yours I have disproved, equally a non-truth is  that OECD is "just a government- (and partially privately-) funded think tank'  . I have no idea where you got this partially privately funded part. OECD is entirely funded by members contributions . Repeat, there is no private funding. Indeed, I am sure that any suggestion towards private (esp corporate) funding  -- try making such a proposal if you think I am wrong -- will cause a major uproar and be rejected out-of-hand both by civil society and governments in the west (OECD) ... This is what I call as colonial - why different standards when developing countries come in? I again challenge you, let you or a corporate moot the idea of corporate funding of OECD's public policy functions and you would know what I mean. Of course, you guys already know what will happen which is why you would never attempt any such thing.. Therefore, my humble request it; do not be colonial minded, please spare us developing countries your advice and models on how digital public policy should be done at a supra-national level! Then there are equally funny things as: "Ask yourself things like, “does the ITU-T’s financing of its standardization process by selling expensive documents to private telcos and charging 5-figure sector membership fees constitute public or private funding? Are you aware of the fact that the Gates Foundation donated $530 million to the World Health Organization, or 12% of its budget? Should they give the money back? Is WIPO’s reliance on patent registration fees public or private funding?" (Milton) These are the kind of places where I would have expected better rigour from a prof of public policy .  Two examples above (the ITU and WIPO ones)  are simply of governments collecting some fees for its services -- they do so all over the world, like collecting toll at a public highway. How do such revenue stream make it private funding of government!? Additionally, ITU is a technical standards body and such a membership fees model as its is common among such standards bodies -- but_not_ for_ public_policy_bodies.    Gates Foundation and the WHO example is indeed a serious one. And you would have read about immense controversies that this has been surrounded with. A few things here. Philanthropy funding is a little different from corporate funding, but that is relatively a smaller point here. Second, and most importantly, public policy functions of thee WHO still get conducted by the untied members contributions. Private funds like from Gates Foundation etc go to specific programs. You see the difference. Every government allows private donations to specific programs which is different from funding its public policy functions.  But still there exist major issues and concerns about the sheer scale of Gates funding of WHO activities which, even if indirectly, can begin influencing WHO's norms developing activities. Read this for instance. And this quoting an India's ex secretary for health, about problems for developing countries that arise from this. There are many academic paper too on this phenomenon, and the health related global civil society -- part of what you call as 'fringe groups' -- are mostly opposed to this untenable increasing influence of the Gates Foundation on the WHO. There are papers on WHO's Covid response in this regard, and all these issues are going to become worse with the launch of the WHO Foundation .. But still all this private funding is sought to remain limited to programmatic functions. There is at least some effort to keep WHO's core normative and policy function relatively insulated from it. As I said, very major concerns remain though, and people and CS groups are not convinced ... But here, with the new proposed MS body for global digital policy making, private funding is directly and explicitly for public policy development function -- there is no programmatic work here... With all its funding the Gates Foundation is still not admitted to the WHO Executive Board, much less its General Assembly ... Again, you see the difference?   In fact, as the our joint letter points out, there are clear indications for seats on the proposed top digital policy body being connected to resource commitment, including as coming from the private sector . (This is from the main proposal for the structure of the body developed by MAG of IGF). Isnt it absolutely shameful! I will stop here for now ... But do let me know of any pressingly important issue/ question that I might have missed.... Happy to discuss this further with you, and with others actors engaged with the proposal for the MS body for digital cooperation. Best regards parminder > P: I did not think I would need to argue, that too with a prof of > public policy, such well-established principles of public governance > and policy making in general, and global levels of them in particular, > like what are the canons of funding public governance and policy > making, and what indeed is the current role of global governance as we > know it. > > MM: Yeah, I will pass over your attempts to lecture me about what a > professor of PP should know and what you consider “well-established > principles of public governance.” This kind of posturing just makes > you look boastful and ignorant and basically begs the questions we are > trying to debate. As you will see as we dig in to the substantive > arguments. > > MM: In my initial message, I said that your rejection of parity among > government and private sector stakeholders revealed a rejection of the > multi-stakeholderism and indicated your support for a state-led, > state-dominated system of global IG. I noted that these principles of > parity are characteristic of the governance of Internet identifiers > (names and addresses) and routing and connectivity, and seems to be > working well. Your response: > > P: You have most conveniently avoided the matter of OCED's CDEP > (committee on digital economy policy) entirely, when it was a big and > one of the most important part of my email. > > MM: Yes, I did not respond about OECD because your message about it > was confused. On the one hand you were saying it is a “colonial” > entity, on the other hand you were incorrectly saying it is > multistakeholder as ICANN or RIRs, and on the third hand (nice of you > to have three hands, by the way) you were holding it up as a model for > global internet governance. But I think this is clarified now. > > MM: The OECD is an intergovernmental organization that fosters policy > research and promotes cooperation in policy among its member states. > It does not make global public policy, in the sense that it can > formally enact and enforce anything, only its member states can do > that. It describes its own output as “guidelines” or what IR/political > science people would call norms. It has incorporated input from labor > stakeholders for some time, and around 2005 or 2006, it began to > incorporate civil society input in a more formalized way. But > nongovernmental stakeholders have no formal decision making power over > what OECD does. So when you say, > > P: I not only fully accept the multistakeholder model that OECD > employs for its digital policy making, I and the networks that I work > with have officially sought as 'the exact same model'  for the global > or the UN level, and developing countries have officially sought in UN > committees and the UN GA 'the exact same model'  for the global or the > UN level > > MM…you are proving my point: you reject the globalized, > multistakeholder model in which civil society and the private sector > have parity and you want a state-led system. Let me add that the fact > that OECD calls itself “multistakeholder” (MS from now on) doesn’t > prove anything other than that people use the MS word in different > ways. The ITU also calls itself MS. The MS label has some cachet and > makes the organization seem open. > > Perhaps a better word for the difference in the models is > sovereignty-based or not. I support a global public policy emerging > from an open, global, multistakeholder regime in which the actual > public, not just states, are directly making policy. You want a > state-led policy and thus are fundamentally a conservative supporting > traditional governance mechanisms of the past two centuries. > > P: And sure enough, you consistently refuse to let us know why you > support the OECD's CDEP's policy work, but wont support a similar > (exact cut paste) model at the global level, and how doing that is not > a colonial attitude? I still look forward to your response to this > central question. > > MM: I never said OECD is a model for global IG. IGP has participated, > to some degree, in OECD’s openness to civil society input, but we have > never “supported” it as a model for global IG. And OECD’s research > reports are very good, very useful, so in that sense I support it. But > it’s not “policy development” work in the sense we are debating; it’s > just a government- (and partially privately-) funded think tank. And > one of the reasons OECD works smoothly is that it is indeed a smaller > club of like-minded states. This is not to say it couldn’t be more > inclusive, but realistically making it bigger will also make it more > difficult to achieve consensus. This is standard collective action > theory, look into it. There are also clubs of developing or > non-western states, e.g. SCO, APEC, etc. Governments sort themselves > into clubs for a reason. Look into it. > > P: As a professor of public policy you surely know that public policy > functions cannot - repeat cannot -- be funded by private funds. > > This is a bizarre argument from authority, when in fact you are not an > authority, not a professor of public policy, you have no formal > education or research credentials in that area, so I don’t know where > you get these absolutist notions. Maybe do a little more > investigation, both contemporary and historical. Ask yourself things > like, “does the ITU-T’s financing of its standardization process by > selling expensive documents to private telcos and charging 5-figure > sector membership fees constitute public or private funding? Are you > aware of the fact that the Gates Foundation donated $530 million to > the World Health Organization, or 12% of its budget? Should they give > the money back? Is WIPO’s reliance on patent registration fees public > or private funding? > > At the global level, public funds are the proportionate contributions > that countries make to the UN fund. I remain fully and consistency of > the view that any UN based global public policy functions can and > should only be funded from this pool of funds. In the same way as it > will be scandalous to involve private funding for any public policy > function in the US.  Or do you disagree? > > Again, your lack of knowledge of actual public policy processes is > showing. You are advancing a very simplistic sovereigntist argument > about international institutions. You have an idealized, ahistorical > notion of the public/private distinction and view public funds (which > are inevitably gained through taxation or expropriation of private > actors, and thus are highly dependent on the private economy) as some > sacrosanct, disinterested source of funds. This underestimates the > self-interest of state bureaucracies, among other flaws, but I really > don’t have time to engage in further education of you. Let’s focus > instead on what, exactly, is the point you are trying to make? As I > understand it, you are saying that any contribution of private funds > to support the IGF is “scandalous.” > > This ignores several salient points, some of which were raised on my > last message and never answered: > > -          What if governments are unwilling or unable to provide the > needed funds but the community of actors involved can raise their own > (private) funds? > > -          Don’t national governments also have key geopolitical > interests in internet governance and wouldn’t they be able to use > their funding as leverage? Why isn’t this “scandalous”? > > -          If private sectors funds are sufficiently diversified, can > bad influence be mitigated? > > P: Even for supra-national level policy making, lets take the OECD > example again .. Let some of guys who freely advocate that  global > level public policy making (because it invokes those poor, > undependable, developing countries) > > MM: I have not seen anyone here make an argument that corporate > funding is needed because of poor, undependable developing countries. > I do see concerns that funding for IGF from _/all/_ governments can be > undependable or inadequate, or geopolitically biased. > > MM: I am certainly aware of the problem of corruption or bias of > public governance functions by private funds or private influence. But > with your devotion to nation-state funding and the sovereign system, > you seem incredibly unaware of how the same problem exists with state > funding. Indeed, state funding and influence can actually be more > “colonial” than the alternative, because who except for the richest > and most powerful countries are most likely to fund and participate in > international institutions? And that includes rich non-white countries > with their own empires and forms of colonialism, such as China. Are > you really unaware of the extent to which international institutions > reinforce or maintain the hegemony of colonial powers? Read some history. > > MM: You would like to present this as a polar choice, due to your > anti-private sector, anti-business ideology. Either we are entirely > state-dominated and funded, or entirely private. But that is not the > choice we have. Public governance institutions ALWAYS involve buy-in > and support from private stakeholders if they are to function at all, > just as private sector market interactions require publicly formulated > and impartially enforced rules. The problem in the IG space is that > internet connectivity is transnational and non-territorial, and there > is a mismatch between the territorial nation-state system of > governance and the globally connected users and suppliers in the > internet economy. Traditional intergovernmental institutions are > therefore poor and even fundamentally unjust representatives of the > policy making needs of cyberspace. So we have to develop new > institutions. It is a never-ending source of amusement to me that the > folks who think they are radical, progressive lefty types have for the > past 20 years been conservative defenders of traditional territorial > nation-state governance > > P: As I said, I mean by democratic the system employed by the OECD for > supra-national digital policy making. > > MM: This is not democratic, this is delegation by nation-states, with > very thin, long-stretched lines back to democratically elected > governments in some cases, and involving _/entirely undemocratic/_ > states in many others.  Further: OECD does not make supra-national > policy. It is simply a club for a subset of nation-states to (at best) > coordinate their own national policies and (most of the time) do > research on policy. In a global polity, a system of representation > that relies on territorial nation states is not democratic, both > because the public is not confined to geographic spaces, and because > at least half of the governments are not democratic. > > P: As someone who claims expertise in global governance matters, I > would have expected you to know the history of how much agreement on > rights, law, political economy and economic policy has actually been > managed by UN based bodies over the last any decades. > > MM: Ah yes, this is why Internet censorship has ceased to exist. All > governments are adhering religiously to Article 19 of the UN > Declaration of Human Rights, and if they don’t, these UN bodies send > in international police forces to enforce the international law, and > haul them before international courts to….oh wait, I am not describing > reality, am I? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Apr 2 04:05:09 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 13:35:09 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <49478fcd-052e-40c5-0e5f-b326127a4df0@itforchange.net> Since the below questions are direct, and you insist on responses to them, let me try -- although there are quite beside the point and distracting .. > This ignores several salient points, some of which were raised on my > last message and never answered: > > -          What if governments are unwilling or unable to provide the > needed funds but the community of actors involved can raise their own > (private) funds?if the > What if  Trump's goons had taken over the capitol hill? What if the insurrection was successful?   I cannot keep suggesting models for every calamitous situation of a full institutional collapse.  There are some working models at the global level, and we should go by them and improve them. What if governments withdraw from global gov responsibility? Who will govern the world then? Every what-if question cannot be answered.  > -          Don’t national governments also have key geopolitical > interests in internet governance and wouldn’t they be able to use > their funding as leverage? Why isn’t this “scandalous”? > Yes they have geopolitical interests, as UN senators have extremely partisan and special-interest proclivities, but end up passing a public budget for the whole of the US.  There are problems with all political models .. Some efforts and struggles are on to improve principles and ways of funding public institutions at global levels too - like trying to improve committed funding from members in a single untied pool and conduct policy functions from that pool -- which mostly remains the case . We need to further improve these models rather then quote their admitted shortcomings for moving further backwards ... > > -          If private sectors funds are sufficiently diversified, can > bad influence be mitigated? > I have asked you -- suggest this for public policy functions in the US and OECD, and you will know where you stand, and how ridiculous such a 'diversified private funding' model for public policy functions really is .... No, bad influence cannot be mitigated, just like, to give an extreme example -- if men were to rule over women, a problem which is only to be mitigated by getting a very diverse set of men ... All the diversified membership for instance of the International Chambers of Commerce still leads to very lopsided 'profit over people' positions coming from the ICC ... parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Fri Apr 2 18:25:42 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2021 22:25:42 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Wow, Parminder, you're getting wordier and wordier and I am not sure I have time to continue this, but let me provide some parting shots before we agree to disagree and go our separate ways... Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. Yep. Yay, discursive democracy! That's what we're doing here, folks. > buckets. Buckets. Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway.... >therefore you really do not approve of [OECD] You could be clearer and more upfront about such > disapproval, here And why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in denouncing them on public mailing lists. As I said, I approve of their research, it's often useful, good economists and policy analysts live there. But I did stop participating. These advisory committees to IGOs have very little voice or power in these organizations. Essentially you're a worker for no pay. I choose to voluntarily donate my time elsewhere. >when pushed into an argumentative corner, That, sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on these email lists. But I can't complain, I do the same thing. >Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to let us know their views on >that model, clearly and upfront. Parminder, this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite advocacy collective. Nobody has to make their views known, "clearly and upfront," to pass your loyalty test. Let's go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally about. You want the internet to be controlled by sovereign states, and I want it to be self-governing and independent of sovereign states, insofar as that's possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet governance. I will fight for its autonomy, you will fight for its subordination to nation-states. We meet in this space because that is the space that was set up to have those debates. 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per you: You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR governance (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital issues, and rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we can include platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. Right. I now understand, though once again you state is very mutely, that you would like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, and other digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is governed Right? You need to be clear and upfront about what is the model you propose for global governance of these non-CIR digital issues -- because that is what is at the centre of this discussion. Here you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that, as a matter of practical reality if not logical consistency. So I stated this "very mutely," did I? LOL! OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken the same way as ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize it under ICANN? or start with the US government and then privatize it? No. ICANN was a governance experiment that can never be repeated. To deal with these other problems we will have to come up with something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions to evolve. Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? Definitely. We need a coalition of governments, private sector and civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms of cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain from militarizing, territorializing, surveilling, censoring and restricting cyberspace for enough time for peaceful forms of cooperation to remain possible. Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... Parminder, scandalizing you is what I live for. It's the only reason I'm on this list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 3 02:58:41 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 12:28:41 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net> On 03/04/21 3:55 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > > Wow, Parminder, you’re getting wordier and wordier and I am not sure I > have time to continue this, but let me provide some parting shots > before we agree to disagree and go our separate ways… > Dear Milton, I wont wow! you .... Words are definitionally the body of discursive democracy. If more were needed in this case that is for reasons that you may at least equally be responsible for. This discussion is about what mode of global governance is appropriate for (non CIR or non tech) digital issues. It is but in order that key interlocutors let know what kind of model they support and advocate in this regard. You spent a few emails to reach there, but yes now from your last email I get a good idea - though still quite vague. I quote from your email. "To deal with these other problems (meaning, non CIR or non-tech digital issues) we will have to come up with something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions to evolve." Very interesting! You want global digital governance to be based on private law, or, I understand, institutions built on private law. That is a quite clear, and also an extra-ordinarily bold, assertion.   Entirely your choice to take forward or not this important discussion on appropriate institutional models for global digital governance, but can you please help us understand this more. (Please do not ask me to read your book :) ) Maybe provide us the outline of how such a thing would look in practice. It you have written about it somewhere pl give us a link (again, pl not a whole book though.) That would be an extremely valuable contribution to the debate, and to the very cause of appropriate global digital governance.  You may please provide one clarification -- what or whose private law should these institutions for global digital governance be based on? US? Some other country? Or you have some conception of global private law? I also understand from the above that such a private law based global digital governance is in your mind an interim arrangement to 'buy time for organise institutions to evolve'. I find this even more interesting, and genuinely so... Again your choice to expound further what you have put across somewhat cryptically, but can you tell us a little more about what kind of organic institutions you have in mind even as a future possibility? Are these too also be based on private law? Or, is this something going towards directly elected global parliament kind of things? I am very interesting in any and all such democratic yearnings and projects, and we may indeed find common ground here. You have ridiculed my asking for clear respective positions on global governance models.... Well, I do not know whether you know much about this area or not but such mutual accountabilities and answer-abilities are at core of global and infra-global civil society working and networking. IT for Change, for instance has a 'your right to know' button on our website, and we promise to respond to any question about us within 2 weeks... This is because we use public money on public trust, and cannot refuse to answer public questions about ourselves. It is in the same spirit that I ask questions from you and others in this space. regards, parminder >   > > Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite > others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for > digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important > matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. > > Yep. Yay, discursive democracy! That’s what we’re doing here, folks. > > > buckets. > > Buckets. Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway…. > > >therefore you really do not approve of [OECD] You could be clearer and > more upfront about such > > > disapproval, here > > And why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in denouncing them > on public mailing lists. As I said, I approve of their research, it’s > often useful, good economists and policy analysts live there. But I > did stop participating. These advisory committees to IGOs have very > little voice or power in these organizations. Essentially you’re a > worker for no pay. I choose to voluntarily donate my time elsewhere. > > >when pushed into an argumentative corner, > > That, sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on these email > lists. But I can’t complain, I do the same thing. > > >Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to > let us know their views on   > > >that model, clearly and upfront. > > Parminder, this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society > coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite advocacy > collective. Nobody has to make their views known, “clearly and > upfront,” to pass your loyalty test. > > Let’s go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally about. You > want the internet to be controlled by sovereign states, and I want it > to be self-governing and independent of sovereign states, insofar as > that’s possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet governance. > I will fight for its autonomy, you will fight for its subordination to > nation-states. We meet in this space because that is the space that > was set up to have those debates. > > 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per you: > You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR governance > (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital issues, and > rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we can include > platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. Right. I now > understand, though once again you state is very mutely, that you would > like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, and other > digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is governed Right? > You need to be clear and upfront about what is the model you propose > for global governance of these non-CIR digital issues -- because that > is what is at the centre of this discussion. > > Here you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that, as a > matter of practical reality if not logical consistency. So I stated > this “very mutely,” did I? LOL! OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken > the same way as ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize it > under ICANN? or start with the US government and then privatize it? > No. ICANN was a governance experiment that can never be repeated. To > deal with these other problems we will have to come up with something > new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private > law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we > have to keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic > institutions to evolve. > > Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various > non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where private > sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? > > Definitely. We need a coalition of governments, private sector and > civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms of > cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain from > militarizing, territorializing, surveilling, censoring and restricting > cyberspace for enough time for peaceful forms of cooperation to remain > possible. > > Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... > > Parminder, scandalizing you is what I live for. It’s the only reason > I’m on this list. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 3 03:01:28 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 12:31:28 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net> References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net> Message-ID: * * This part in addressed to others and not Milton. While I request your engagement with this debate, especially of those who have involved themselves with the new 'digital cooperation' governance models, I must clarify one thing. My use of personally targeted language, if any, against Milton had only and exceptionally to do with, and was only in response to, his habitual way of saying things like, as he did this time, that the other person is totally ignorant, and that signing organisations are some fringe inconsequential organisations, doing ideological name-calling, and so on .. Take this as a kind of 'private thing' between Milton and me, even as we do productively discuss very important issues, concepts and ideas..... Let this bilateral idiosyncrasy of ours not deter you, others, from  your public duty to engage in this very important debate, and, as and if required, respond to important issues and questions that have been raised here. If the global CS Internet Governance Caucus were not to be discussing global digital governance models at this critical juncture when one such model is close to being installed, I do not know what the IGC is doing at all. parminder * * On 03/04/21 12:28 pm, parminder wrote: > > > On 03/04/21 3:55 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >> >> Wow, Parminder, you’re getting wordier and wordier and I am not sure >> I have time to continue this, but let me provide some parting shots >> before we agree to disagree and go our separate ways… >> > Dear Milton, I wont wow! you .... Words are definitionally the body of > discursive democracy. If more were needed in this case that is for > reasons that you may at least equally be responsible for. This > discussion is about what mode of global governance is appropriate for > (non CIR or non tech) digital issues. It is but in order that key > interlocutors let know what kind of model they support and advocate in > this regard. You spent a few emails to reach there, but yes now from > your last email I get a good idea - though still quite vague. I quote > from your email. > > "To deal with these other problems (meaning, non CIR or non-tech > digital issues) we will have to come up with something new. But, like > ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather > than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to > keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions > to evolve." > > Very interesting! You want global digital governance to be based on > private law, or, I understand, institutions built on private law. That > is a quite clear, and also an extra-ordinarily bold, assertion.   > Entirely your choice to take forward or not this important discussion > on appropriate institutional models for global digital governance, but > can you please help us understand this more. (Please do not ask me to > read your book :) ) Maybe provide us the outline of how such a thing > would look in practice. It you have written about it somewhere pl give > us a link (again, pl not a whole book though.) That would be an > extremely valuable contribution to the debate, and to the very cause > of appropriate global digital governance.  > > You may please provide one clarification -- what or whose private law > should these institutions for global digital governance be based on? > US? Some other country? Or you have some conception of global private > law? > > I also understand from the above that such a private law based global > digital governance is in your mind an interim arrangement to 'buy time > for organise institutions to evolve'. I find this even more > interesting, and genuinely so... Again your choice to expound further > what you have put across somewhat cryptically, but can you tell us a > little more about what kind of organic institutions you have in mind > even as a future possibility? Are these too also be based on private > law? Or, is this something going towards directly elected global > parliament kind of things? I am very interesting in any and all such > democratic yearnings and projects, and we may indeed find common > ground here. > > You have ridiculed my asking for clear respective positions on global > governance models.... Well, I do not know whether you know much about > this area or not but such mutual accountabilities and answer-abilities > are at core of global and infra-global civil society working and > networking. IT for Change, for instance has a 'your right to know' > button on our website, and we promise to respond to any question about > us within 2 weeks... This is because we use public money on public > trust, and cannot refuse to answer public questions about ourselves. > It is in the same spirit that I ask questions from you and others in > this space. > > regards, parminder > > >>   >> >> Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite >> others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for >> digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important >> matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. >> >> Yep. Yay, discursive democracy! That’s what we’re doing here, folks. >> >> > buckets. >> >> Buckets. Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway…. >> >> >therefore you really do not approve of [OECD] You could be clearer >> and more upfront about such >> >> > disapproval, here >> >> And why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in denouncing them >> on public mailing lists. As I said, I approve of their research, it’s >> often useful, good economists and policy analysts live there. But I >> did stop participating. These advisory committees to IGOs have very >> little voice or power in these organizations. Essentially you’re a >> worker for no pay. I choose to voluntarily donate my time elsewhere. >> >> >when pushed into an argumentative corner, >> >> That, sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on these email >> lists. But I can’t complain, I do the same thing. >> >> >Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to >> let us know their views on   >> >> >that model, clearly and upfront. >> >> Parminder, this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society >> coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite advocacy >> collective. Nobody has to make their views known, “clearly and >> upfront,” to pass your loyalty test. >> >> Let’s go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally about. You >> want the internet to be controlled by sovereign states, and I want it >> to be self-governing and independent of sovereign states, insofar as >> that’s possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet >> governance. I will fight for its autonomy, you will fight for its >> subordination to nation-states. We meet in this space because that is >> the space that was set up to have those debates. >> >> 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per you: >> You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR governance >> (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital issues, and >> rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we can include >> platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. Right. I now >> understand, though once again you state is very mutely, that you >> would like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, and other >> digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is governed Right? >> You need to be clear and upfront about what is the model you propose >> for global governance of these non-CIR digital issues -- because that >> is what is at the centre of this discussion. >> >> Here you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that, as a >> matter of practical reality if not logical consistency. So I stated >> this “very mutely,” did I? LOL! OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken >> the same way as ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize >> it under ICANN? or start with the US government and then privatize >> it? No. ICANN was a governance experiment that can never be repeated. >> To deal with these other problems we will have to come up with >> something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted >> in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, >> that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy time >> for organic institutions to evolve. >> >> Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various >> non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where >> private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? >> >> Definitely. We need a coalition of governments, private sector and >> civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms of >> cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain from >> militarizing, territorializing, surveilling, censoring and >> restricting cyberspace for enough time for peaceful forms of >> cooperation to remain possible. >> >> Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... >> >> Parminder, scandalizing you is what I live for. It’s the only reason >> I’m on this list. >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Sat Apr 3 05:12:58 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh at hserus.net) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 09:12:58 +0000 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: If, as you keep advocating, governments got primacy in Internet Governance, do you think they would welcome any other than industry and civil society actors (gongos and quangos, the term used to be in the 80s) that are close to them / have a good personal equation with them to have a seat at the table in any governance discussion at all? In other words, state owned telcos here, crony capitalist telcos there. And maybe a few “NGOs” that routinely toe the government line and keep issuing statements in favor of extended government control over all things. Everybody else will be right back where they were when the Internet was the exclusive province of big telecom / government owned telecom. --srs From: Governance on behalf of parminder via Governance Date: Saturday, 3 April 2021 at 12:31 PM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org Subject: Re: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body This part in addressed to others and not Milton. While I request your engagement with this debate, especially of those who have involved themselves with the new 'digital cooperation' governance models, I must clarify one thing. My use of personally targeted language, if any, against Milton had only and exceptionally to do with, and was only in response to, his habitual way of saying things like, as he did this time, that the other person is totally ignorant, and that signing organisations are some fringe inconsequential organisations, doing ideological name-calling, and so on .. Take this as a kind of 'private thing' between Milton and me, even as we do productively discuss very important issues, concepts and ideas..... Let this bilateral idiosyncrasy of ours not deter you, others, from your public duty to engage in this very important debate, and, as and if required, respond to important issues and questions that have been raised here. If the global CS Internet Governance Caucus were not to be discussing global digital governance models at this critical juncture when one such model is close to being installed, I do not know what the IGC is doing at all. parminder On 03/04/21 12:28 pm, parminder wrote: On 03/04/21 3:55 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: Wow, Parminder, you’re getting wordier and wordier and I am not sure I have time to continue this, but let me provide some parting shots before we agree to disagree and go our separate ways… Dear Milton, I wont wow! you .... Words are definitionally the body of discursive democracy. If more were needed in this case that is for reasons that you may at least equally be responsible for. This discussion is about what mode of global governance is appropriate for (non CIR or non tech) digital issues. It is but in order that key interlocutors let know what kind of model they support and advocate in this regard. You spent a few emails to reach there, but yes now from your last email I get a good idea - though still quite vague. I quote from your email. "To deal with these other problems (meaning, non CIR or non-tech digital issues) we will have to come up with something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions to evolve." Very interesting! You want global digital governance to be based on private law, or, I understand, institutions built on private law. That is a quite clear, and also an extra-ordinarily bold, assertion. Entirely your choice to take forward or not this important discussion on appropriate institutional models for global digital governance, but can you please help us understand this more. (Please do not ask me to read your book :) ) Maybe provide us the outline of how such a thing would look in practice. It you have written about it somewhere pl give us a link (again, pl not a whole book though.) That would be an extremely valuable contribution to the debate, and to the very cause of appropriate global digital governance. You may please provide one clarification -- what or whose private law should these institutions for global digital governance be based on? US? Some other country? Or you have some conception of global private law? I also understand from the above that such a private law based global digital governance is in your mind an interim arrangement to 'buy time for organise institutions to evolve'. I find this even more interesting, and genuinely so... Again your choice to expound further what you have put across somewhat cryptically, but can you tell us a little more about what kind of organic institutions you have in mind even as a future possibility? Are these too also be based on private law? Or, is this something going towards directly elected global parliament kind of things? I am very interesting in any and all such democratic yearnings and projects, and we may indeed find common ground here. You have ridiculed my asking for clear respective positions on global governance models.... Well, I do not know whether you know much about this area or not but such mutual accountabilities and answer-abilities are at core of global and infra-global civil society working and networking. IT for Change, for instance has a 'your right to know' button on our website, and we promise to respond to any question about us within 2 weeks... This is because we use public money on public trust, and cannot refuse to answer public questions about ourselves. It is in the same spirit that I ask questions from you and others in this space. regards, parminder Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. Yep. Yay, discursive democracy! That’s what we’re doing here, folks. > buckets. Buckets. Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway…. >therefore you really do not approve of [OECD] You could be clearer and more upfront about such > disapproval, here And why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in denouncing them on public mailing lists. As I said, I approve of their research, it’s often useful, good economists and policy analysts live there. But I did stop participating. These advisory committees to IGOs have very little voice or power in these organizations. Essentially you’re a worker for no pay. I choose to voluntarily donate my time elsewhere. >when pushed into an argumentative corner, That, sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on these email lists. But I can’t complain, I do the same thing. >Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to let us know their views on >that model, clearly and upfront. Parminder, this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite advocacy collective. Nobody has to make their views known, “clearly and upfront,” to pass your loyalty test. Let’s go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally about. You want the internet to be controlled by sovereign states, and I want it to be self-governing and independent of sovereign states, insofar as that’s possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet governance. I will fight for its autonomy, you will fight for its subordination to nation-states. We meet in this space because that is the space that was set up to have those debates. 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per you: You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR governance (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital issues, and rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we can include platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. Right. I now understand, though once again you state is very mutely, that you would like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, and other digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is governed Right? You need to be clear and upfront about what is the model you propose for global governance of these non-CIR digital issues -- because that is what is at the centre of this discussion. Here you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that, as a matter of practical reality if not logical consistency. So I stated this “very mutely,” did I? LOL! OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken the same way as ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize it under ICANN? or start with the US government and then privatize it? No. ICANN was a governance experiment that can never be repeated. To deal with these other problems we will have to come up with something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions to evolve. Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? Definitely. We need a coalition of governments, private sector and civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms of cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain from militarizing, territorializing, surveilling, censoring and restricting cyberspace for enough time for peaceful forms of cooperation to remain possible. Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... Parminder, scandalizing you is what I live for. It’s the only reason I’m on this list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Apr 3 11:19:40 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2021 20:49:40 +0530 Subject: [Governance] Big Tech, Big Cash: But why lobby when you can sit on the policy table Message-ID: <5c5d76bb-23fa-7715-db61-b96eebf409ab@itforchange.net> These poor big tech guys having to unnecessarily spend so much of their hard earned money will find respite if instead of all this shadowy work they can directly have seats at the policy making table, as many here are working so hard to to get them, like with the new proposed MS body for global digital policy making .. Public interest spirited civil society organisations as this US based NGO Public Citizen, that brought out this  excellent report, can also then stop howling against our big tech benefactors. parminder Link to report: https://www.citizen.org/article/big-tech-lobbying-update/ “Facebook and Amazon are now the* two biggest corporate lobbying spenders* in the country.” *Big Tech, Big Cash: Washington’s New Power Players* An updated analysis of the rise in lobbying and campaign contributions from the Big Tech companies: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google Executive Summary In recent years, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have all come under increased scrutiny for threatening our privacy, democracy, small businesses, and workers. In the race to amass monopoly power in their respective markets, these corporations have developed predatory business practices that harvest user data for profit^[1] and facilitated discrimination by race, religion, national origin,^[2] age,^[3] and gender.^[4] Facebook and Google have wielded unprecedented influence over our democratic process.^[5] Amazon has been accused of subjecting workers to unsafe working conditions during COVID-19,^[6] while the plurality of its workforce is Black, brown, and/or non-white.^[7] All of these companies have killed, rather than fostered innovation.^[8] Increased investments in Washington have allowed these monopolists to harm consumers, workers, and other businesses alike, with relatively little accountability to date. A report Public Citizen released in 2019  (covering up to the 2018 election cycle) detailed how Big Tech corporations have blanketed Capitol Hill with lobbyists and lavished members of Congress with campaign contributions. This is an update of that report, based on data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics . Since the 2020 election cycle has ended, Public Citizen reevaluated Big Tech’s influence over the government by analyzing the tech companies’ lobbying spending and campaign contributions. Here are the key findings of this report: * Facebook and Amazon are now the* two biggest corporate lobbying spenders* in the country.^[9] * Big Tech has eclipsed yesterday’s big lobbying spenders, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. In 2020, Amazon and Facebook spent *nearly twice as much* as Exxon and Philip Morris on lobbying. * During the 2020 election cycle, Big Tech spent *$124 million in lobbying and campaign contributions *–– breaking its own records from past election cycles. * Amazon and Facebook drove most of this growth. From the years of 2018-2020, Amazon *increased spending by 30%* while Facebook *added an astounding 56%* to its Washington investment. * The four Big Tech companies recruited more lobbyists into their army, increasing its ranks by*40 new lobbyists*, from 293 in 2018 to 333 in 2020.^[10] * Big Tech PACs, lobbyists, and employees contributed *over 33% more *in the 2020 election cycle than they did in the 2018 cycle, for *an increase of over $4 million *in funds, and a *total of nearly $16.5 million *in contributions to the election cycle. This marks the greatest cycle-over-cycle increase in campaign contributions from Big Tech in the ten-year span Public Citizen reviewed. * Big Tech’s lobbyists are not just numerous, they are also among the most influential in Washington. Among the 10 lobbyists who were the biggest contributors to the 2020 election cycle, *half* lobby on behalf of at least one of the four Big Tech companies. Together, just these five lobbyists contributed *over $2 million* to the 2020 elections. * Nearly all *(94%)* members of Congress with jurisdiction over privacy and antitrust issues have received money from a Big Tech corporate PAC or lobbyist. In total, just in 2020, Big Tech PACs and lobbyists have *contributed about $3.2 million *to lawmakers tasked with regulating them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Apr 7 03:53:22 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 03:53:22 -0400 Subject: [Governance] WEBCAST TODAY: WSIS 2021 Thematic Workshop 300: Accelerating Adaptable Aging Services to Promote the Comprehensive Development of Information Accessibility Message-ID: The internet Society of China, by virtue of being a government entity, is not affiliated with the Internet Society. Nevertheless they do seem to like to have an ISOC speaker on their WSIS panels. In 2019 it was Jane Coffin . Today it is Gunela Astbrink of the Accessibility SIG. With only about a quarter of China's 250+ million seniors currently online, a major effort is under way to improve their access to services. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Wednesday April 7 2021, at the World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2021 (WSIS 2021) the Internet Society of China (ISC) hosts a thematic workshop 'Accelerating Adaptable Aging Services to Promote the Comprehensive Development of Informati" [image: livestream] Today, *Wednesday April 7 2021*, at the *World Summit on the Information Society Forum 2021* (WSIS 2021) the *Internet Society of China * (ISC) hosts a thematic workshop '*Accelerating Adaptable Aging Services to Promote the Comprehensive Development of Information Accessibility *'. Representatives from multistakeholder community will be invited to share their insight on the issue related to aging services and construction of an inclusive information society. *SESSION 300 - 10:00- 11:00 UTC* *PANEL* Mr. *Houlin Zhao*, Secretary-General, ITU Mr. *Lv Shiming*, Vice-Chairman China, Disabled Persons’ Federation Mr. *Shao Daoxi*n, Deputy Director General, Information and Communication Administration Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China (MIIT) Mr. *He Guili*, Vice President & Deputy Secretary-General, Internet Society of China (ISC) Ms. *Wang Zhiqin,* Vice President, China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT) Prof. *Shahbaz Khan,* Director and Representative, UNESCO Beijing Cluster Office Ms. *Gunela Astbrink*, Vice President, Internet Society Accessibility Special Interest Group, ISOC Ms. *Selina Yuan*, Vice president, Ali Group Prof. *Su Wei*, Dean, Research Center of Information Accessibility, Lanzhou University Ms. *Enya Chen*, General Manager, Customer Research & User Experience Design Center, Shenzhen Tencent Computer Systems Company Limited Mr. *James Lu*, Senior Manager, Device Software Product Marketing, Huawei Consumer Business Group *MODERATOR* Ms. *Pei Wei*, Deputy Secretary-General, Internet Society of China (ISC) *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/wsis2021-300 * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM https://bit.ly/3wCbQor * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3dVINnB (AI)* *TWITTER #WSIS2021 #seniors #a11y @a11ysig* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/isocny/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/wsis2021-300 * *LINK* *China News How to solve the digital problem of the elderly? * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13930/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Thu Apr 8 10:48:13 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 15:48:13 +0100 Subject: [Governance] Intro course on cyber discussions at the UN First Committee Message-ID: Dear all, We have extended the short application process for a free training course below to COB 09 April (Friday). It's an introductory course aimed at civil society focused on cyber discussions at the UN First Committee. Please let me know if you have any questions. Looking forward to receiving your application! Best Sheetal. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can find information about the training here: https://www.gp-digital.org/case-study/webinars/ You can apply for part 1 of the series via this short application form here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScY0meaMuuWsoW5qyCt955jdzmpS82QMedxe5SO4QBDniTXCA/viewform Please apply by *COB 09 April.* and feel free to share with your networks! -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 8 13:20:49 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:20:49 -0400 Subject: [Governance] SIMULCAST: Securing the Subsea Network Message-ID: This is under way. A brief session, just 45 mins, to mark the release of a new report. ISOC Live posted: "Today, Thursday 8 April 2021 at 1pm EDT (17:00 UTC) the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) presents a webinar 'Securing the Subsea Network'. The United States’ position as the world’s leading hub in subsea networks can no longer be tak" [image: livestream] Today, *Thursday 8 April 2021* at *1pm EDT* (17:00 UTC) the *Center for Strategic and International Studies * (CSIS) presents a webinar '*Securing the Subsea Network *'. The United States’ position as the world’s leading hub in subsea networks can no longer be taken for granted. More of the world is coming online, and China is emerging rapidly as a leading subsea cable provider and owner. Join CSIS for a discussion of the U.S. economic and strategic interests at stake and recommendations for protecting U.S. centrality in the world's information superhighways. *PANEL* *Vinton G. Cerf*, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google *Catherine Creese*, Director, US Naval Seafloor Cable Protection Office *Lieutenant General (ret) William C. Mayville*, Former Commanding General of the 1st Infantry Division, Director of Operations for the Joint Staff, and Vice Commander, U.S. Cybercom *MODERATOR* *Jonathan E. Hillman*, Senior Fellow and Director of the Reconnecting Asia Project, CSIS *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/csis-subsea * *PARTICIPATE https://bit.ly/3dPkveC * *REAL TIME TEXT https://bit.ly/3mtMSD2 * *TWITTER #subsea @CSIS @vgcerf* *REPORT Securing the Subsea Network: A Primer for Policymakers * *SIMULCASTShttps://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive https://www.facebook.com/isocny/live * *ARCHIVEhttps://archive.org/details/csis-subsea * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13933/ -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Fri Apr 9 13:57:23 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 13:57:23 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_SAT=3A_ISOC_Hyderabad_Chapter_Ina?= =?utf-8?q?ugural_=E2=80=93_Future_of_Internet?= Message-ID: Congratulations to ISOC India Hyderabad on their inaugural event! Onward and upward! ISOC Live posted: "On Saturday 10th April 2021 at 11:00 IST | 05:30 UTC the Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapter will hold its inaugural event online with the theme 'Future of Internet'. The ceremony includes sessions on the Internet and its Eco Systems by eminent speak" [image: livestream] On *Saturday 10th April 2021* at *11:00 IST* | 05:30 UTC the *Internet Society India Hyderabad Chapte*r will hold its inaugural event online with the theme '*Future of Internet *'. The ceremony includes sessions on the Internet and its Eco Systems by eminent speakers. *SPEAKERS* *Dr.Salman Abdul Moiz*, Vice Chair, ISOC Hyderabad *Christine Saegesser Baethg*e, Senior Director, Chapters and Individual Members, Internet Society *K Mohan Raidu*, President, ISOC Hyderabad *Satish Babu*, Chair, APRALO *Samiran Gupta*, India Head, ICANN *Akriti Bopanna*. Centre for Internet and Society, India *Dhruv Dhody*, Huawei, Bangalore *Ajith Francis*, Policy Manager, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network *J. Satyanarayana*, Chief Advisor, C4IR, India *Bala Prasad Beddigari*, Secretary, ISOC Hyderabad *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/isoc-hyd * *AGENDA http://bit.ly/IsochydAgenda * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM http://bit.ly/ISochyd * *TWITTER #isochyderabad @ISOC_Community @isocapac #WeAreTheInternetSociety #isocvirtual* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *https://www.facebook.com/isocasiapacific/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/isoc-hyd * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13937/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Apr 12 02:35:51 2021 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:05:51 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net> Message-ID: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56701765 Jack Ma's Alibaba gets heavily fined for abusing its marker dominance for many years. Bill Gates's Microsoft earned most of its money from its monopoly OS and office applications, employing blatantly anti-competitive practices in the 1990's and 2000's ... Great that It is for Jack Ma and Mrs Gates to give us the roadmap for global digital cooperation and (non) regulation , as they did through the "Digital Cooperation' initiative .... It is quick shocking that the irony of it is entirely lost on most 'civil society' here. Not sure what is happening. Under the new 'Digital Cooperation' rubric, being built right now, we would of course soon have Facebook and Twitter leading policy work on social media, and Google and Baidu  on data governance. Already Microsoft plays the biggest part in developing outcomes from the IGF's best Practices Forum on data and new technologies ... The new Digital Cooperation rubric is explicitly supposed to carry forward work from industry dominated activities in best practices forums to global digital policy stage, stamped with the legitimacy of a 'bottom up process' and now the authority of the new High Level Multistakeholder Body that is being set up. Let the people here, and those actively involved in building and supporting this new global digital policy architecture, not deny the responsibility when the fully grown Frankenstein is up and active among us ....  ON OECD's digital policy making; This is an announcement today https://www.oecd.org/digital/trusted-government-access-personal-data-private-sector.htm It says " The OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy, which has long been at the forefront of global data governance policy work," So, well people can still keep denying that OECD's CDEP does 'policy work' and further that it does 'global policy work' , and in a fully colonial way keep working with and supporting the OECD digital policy work, even as they oppose similar possibilities at the global level. It further says, that the purpose is to "examine the possibility of developing, as a matter of priority, an instrument setting out high-level principles or policy guidance for trusted government access to personal data held by the private sector." Not policy work, right! The " Committee agreed to convene a drafting group comprised of nominated government representatives and experts, including from law enforcement and national security agencies", for the purpose if developing a draft instrument. All drafting group members are gov representatives or otherwise gov nominated ... And this is just the drafting group, the final decision making body, the Committee itself, is of course also fully governmental . But sure, people can keep calling OECD's digital policy work as multistakholder, and call the same model at the UN level as multi--lateral and gov capture of digital governance. parminder On 03/04/21 12:31 pm, parminder wrote: > > * > * > > This part in addressed to others and not Milton. > > While I request your engagement with this debate, especially of those > who have involved themselves with the new 'digital cooperation' > governance models, I must clarify one thing. My use of personally > targeted language, if any, against Milton had only and exceptionally > to do with, and was only in response to, his habitual way of saying > things like, as he did this time, that the other person is totally > ignorant, and that signing organisations are some fringe > inconsequential organisations, doing ideological name-calling, and so > on .. Take this as a kind of 'private thing' between Milton and me, > even as we do productively discuss very important issues, concepts and > ideas..... > > Let this bilateral idiosyncrasy of ours not deter you, others, from  > your public duty to engage in this very important debate, and, as and > if required, respond to important issues and questions that have been > raised here. > > If the global CS Internet Governance Caucus were not to be discussing > global digital governance models at this critical juncture when one > such model is close to being installed, I do not know what the IGC is > doing at all. > > parminder > > * > * > > On 03/04/21 12:28 pm, parminder wrote: >> >> >> On 03/04/21 3:55 am, Mueller, Milton L wrote: >>> >>> Wow, Parminder, you’re getting wordier and wordier and I am not sure >>> I have time to continue this, but let me provide some parting shots >>> before we agree to disagree and go our separate ways… >>> >> Dear Milton, I wont wow! you .... Words are definitionally the body >> of discursive democracy. If more were needed in this case that is for >> reasons that you may at least equally be responsible for. This >> discussion is about what mode of global governance is appropriate for >> (non CIR or non tech) digital issues. It is but in order that key >> interlocutors let know what kind of model they support and advocate >> in this regard. You spent a few emails to reach there, but yes now >> from your last email I get a good idea - though still quite vague. I >> quote from your email. >> >> "To deal with these other problems (meaning, non CIR or non-tech >> digital issues) we will have to come up with something new. But, like >> ICANN, it should try to be global and rooted in private law rather >> than in national institutions. So in my view, that means we have to >> keep national governments at bay to buy time for organic institutions >> to evolve." >> >> Very interesting! You want global digital governance to be based on >> private law, or, I understand, institutions built on private law. >> That is a quite clear, and also an extra-ordinarily bold, assertion. >>   Entirely your choice to take forward or not this important >> discussion on appropriate institutional models for global digital >> governance, but can you please help us understand this more. (Please >> do not ask me to read your book :) ) Maybe provide us the outline of >> how such a thing would look in practice. It you have written about it >> somewhere pl give us a link (again, pl not a whole book though.) That >> would be an extremely valuable contribution to the debate, and to the >> very cause of appropriate global digital governance.  >> >> You may please provide one clarification -- what or whose private law >> should these institutions for global digital governance be based on? >> US? Some other country? Or you have some conception of global private >> law? >> >> I also understand from the above that such a private law based global >> digital governance is in your mind an interim arrangement to 'buy >> time for organise institutions to evolve'. I find this even more >> interesting, and genuinely so... Again your choice to expound further >> what you have put across somewhat cryptically, but can you tell us a >> little more about what kind of organic institutions you have in mind >> even as a future possibility? Are these too also be based on private >> law? Or, is this something going towards directly elected global >> parliament kind of things? I am very interesting in any and all such >> democratic yearnings and projects, and we may indeed find common >> ground here. >> >> You have ridiculed my asking for clear respective positions on global >> governance models.... Well, I do not know whether you know much about >> this area or not but such mutual accountabilities and >> answer-abilities are at core of global and infra-global civil society >> working and networking. IT for Change, for instance has a 'your right >> to know' button on our website, and we promise to respond to any >> question about us within 2 weeks... This is because we use public >> money on public trust, and cannot refuse to answer public questions >> about ourselves. It is in the same spirit that I ask questions from >> you and others in this space. >> >> regards, parminder >> >> >>>   >>> >>> Again, agree that this discussion is very important. I would invite >>> others closely involved with the proposal for the new MS body for >>> digital cooperation to please also get involved - Such important >>> matters need to go through the test and fire of discursive democracy. >>> >>> Yep. Yay, discursive democracy! That’s what we’re doing here, folks. >>> >>> > buckets. >>> >>> Buckets. Not a very cyber metaphor. Packets? Photons? Anyway…. >>> >>> >therefore you really do not approve of [OECD] You could be clearer >>> and more upfront about such >>> >>> > disapproval, here >>> >>> And why do I need to do that, here? I see no point in denouncing >>> them on public mailing lists. As I said, I approve of their >>> research, it’s often useful, good economists and policy analysts >>> live there. But I did stop participating. These advisory committees >>> to IGOs have very little voice or power in these organizations. >>> Essentially you’re a worker for no pay. I choose to voluntarily >>> donate my time elsewhere. >>> >>> >when pushed into an argumentative corner, >>> >>> That, sir, is an excellent description of your tactics on these >>> email lists. But I can’t complain, I do the same thing. >>> >>> >Here I will request others who actively work with the OECD model to >>> let us know their views on   >>> >>> >that model, clearly and upfront. >>> >>> Parminder, this is a mailing list of a diverse civil society >>> coalition, not the monthly meeting of a Trotskyite advocacy >>> collective. Nobody has to make their views known, “clearly and >>> upfront,” to pass your loyalty test. >>> >>> Let’s go back to what this disagreement was fundamentally about. You >>> want the internet to be controlled by sovereign states, and I want >>> it to be self-governing and independent of sovereign states, insofar >>> as that’s possible. Those are two distinct paths for internet >>> governance. I will fight for its autonomy, you will fight for its >>> subordination to nation-states. We meet in this space because that >>> is the space that was set up to have those debates. >>> >>> 2 The appropriate model for global digital policy making, as per >>> you: You have earlier made a clear distinction between CIR >>> governance (ICANN etc) and governance of other Internet/ digital >>> issues, and rightly so. I understand that in the latter category we >>> can include platform governance, data governance, AI governance etc. >>> Right. I now understand, though once again you state is very mutely, >>> that you would like to see global governance of platforms, data, AI, >>> and other digital issues undertaken in the same way as ICANN is >>> governed Right? You need to be clear and upfront about what is the >>> model you propose for global governance of these non-CIR digital >>> issues -- because that is what is at the centre of this discussion. >>> >>> Here you make a good point, I do need to be clear about that, as a >>> matter of practical reality if not logical consistency. So I stated >>> this “very mutely,” did I? LOL! OK, I will speak louder. Undertaken >>> the same way as ICANN? Depends on what you mean. You mean, organize >>> it under ICANN? or start with the US government and then privatize >>> it? No. ICANN was a governance experiment that can never be >>> repeated. To deal with these other problems we will have to come up >>> with something new. But, like ICANN, it should try to be global and >>> rooted in private law rather than in national institutions. So in my >>> view, that means we have to keep national governments at bay to buy >>> time for organic institutions to evolve. >>> >>> Milton, are you really saying we should be dealing with various >>> non-CIR digital public policy issues in the same manner? Where >>> private sector sits at the same or higher level as governments? >>> >>> Definitely. We need a coalition of governments, private sector and >>> civil society to work together in nonhierarchical forms of >>> cooperation, and we need to have governments refrain from >>> militarizing, territorializing, surveilling, censoring and >>> restricting cyberspace for enough time for peaceful forms of >>> cooperation to remain possible. >>> >>> Well, I repeat, it is scandalous... >>> >>> Parminder, scandalizing you is what I live for. It’s the only reason >>> I’m on this list. >>> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From suresh at hserus.net Mon Apr 12 02:40:15 2021 From: suresh at hserus.net (suresh) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2021 12:10:15 +0530 Subject: [Governance] 170 orgs send an open letter to UN SG to stop plans for a new High Level Multistakeholder Body In-Reply-To: References: <7795cc31-b355-8556-71d6-12e1d43e7ee9@itforchange.net> <02f04869-79ee-2cfd-55c2-323c59bbed4d@itforchange.net> <1559bbe8-369e-e603-066d-128368f15b3e@itforchange.net> <61d05ab7-19c3-ccdd-6573-3248829a4283@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <1CAFAAB4-CE71-AC41-B7AD-C4308DB9C0B3@hxcore.ol> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Wed Apr 14 11:46:41 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 11:46:41 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_THURS_/_JUEVES_=E2=80=93_CITEL_Co?= =?utf-8?q?nnecting_the_Unconnected_in_rural_and_remote_areas_=7C_C?= =?utf-8?q?onectando_a_los_desconectados_en_=C3=A1reas_rurales_y_re?= =?utf-8?q?motas?= Message-ID: Topic close to our hearts. Jane Coffin is on the second panel. Historic, being the first time we've ever streamed a CITEL event! ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday April 15 2021 from 9am-12pm EDT (13:00-16:00 UTC) the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (OAS-CITEL), in partnership with Telefonica and the Internet Society presents a virtual webinar "Connecting the Unconnected in rural and remote " [image: Livestream (english)] On *Thursday April 15 2021* from *9am-12pm EDT* (13:00-16:00 UTC) the *Inter-American Telecommunications Commission * (OAS-CITEL), in partnership with *Telefonica * and the *Internet Society * presents a virtual webinar "*Connecting the Unconnected in rural and remote areas *". The objective of this seminar is to share with the different actors in the sector, challenges, opportunities, works and their vision towards hemispheric cooperation for the development of infrastructure and provide services in rural or remote areas; as well as, specific actions undertaken to connect the unconnected. [image: LIVESTREAM ESPANOL] *El jueves 15 de abril de 2021* de *9am a 12pm EDT* (13:00-16:00 UTC) la *Comisión Interamericana de Telecomunicaciones * (OEA-CITEL), en asociación con *Telefonica * e *Internet Society * presenta un seminario virtual áreas "*Conectando a los desconectados en áreas rurales y remotas *". El objetivo de este seminario es compartir con los diferentes actores del sector, desafíos, oportunidades, obras y su visión hacia la cooperación hemisférica para el desarrollo de infraestructura y prestación de servicios en áreas rurales o remotas; así como acciones específicas emprendidas para conectar a los desconectados. *PARTICIPANTS / PARTICIPANTES* *Oscar León*, Executive Secretary of CITEL *Julissa Cruz Abreu* – Executive Director of INDOTEL, Dominican Republic *Carlos Lugo* - Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones (CRC) - Colombia Andrés Michelena, Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Society – Ecuador *Diego Carrillo*, Vice-Minister of Communications – Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC) of Peru *Arturo Robles*, Commissioner- Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones de México *Doreen Bogdan-Martin* – Director - ITU-BDT *Teresa Gomes* (Internet para Todos, Perú) *Julián Casasbuenas* (Colnodo) *Ryan Johnson* (Viasat) *Jane Coffin* (ISOC) *Basilio Perez* (ABRINT) *Martha Suárez* (Dynamic Spectrum Alliance) *Jose Ayala* (GSA) *Santiago Reyes-Borda*, Senior Policy Advisor, International Telecommunications and Internet Policy – Canada *LIVESTREAM (ENGLISH) http://livestream.com/internetsociety2/citel-unconnected * *LIVESTREAM (ESPAÑOL) http://livestream.com/internetsociety3/citel-unconnected * *AGENDA https://bit.ly/3tj58Sh * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM **https://bit.ly/3dZnG3J* (EN/ES) *TWITTER #ConnectingTheUnconnected @OEA_CITEL @Telefonica_En @Telefonica @InternetSociety #switchiton #GrowInternet* *SIMULCASTS* *https://www.pscp.tv/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive* (EN only) *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSocietyAmericaLatinayCaribe/live * (AI Captions) *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/citel-unconnected * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13970/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From milton at gatech.edu Thu Apr 15 00:12:36 2021 From: milton at gatech.edu (Mueller, Milton L) Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 04:12:36 +0000 Subject: [Governance] Our take on the AliBaba antitrust issue Message-ID: https://www.internetgovernance.org/2021/04/13/the-narrative-april-13-2021/ We also discuss the China cryptocurrency initiative. Dr. Milton L Mueller Georgia Institute of Technology School of Public Policy [IGP_logo_gold block] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 17960 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Fri Apr 16 07:52:30 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 12:52:30 +0100 Subject: [Governance] UNSG Roadmap on digital cooperation: a brief status-check Message-ID: Dear all, There have been interesting exchanges on this list regarding the UNSG's Roadmap on digital cooperation, and in particular the proposal for a IGF + and a new 'high level multistakeholder advisory group' or MHLB. Bruna and I thought it might be helpful for those less acquainted with the discussions and with civil society engagement so far to have an overview of how civil society has contributed so far to these discussions and what their current status is. We'd be happy to dedicate an hour or so in the coming weeks to catch people up with what's been happening and answer any questions you may have, as well as provide a space for reflection on the discussions so far. For timezone purposes we suggest holding the call at 1 PM UTC. Please fill out this doodle with some proposed dates in May: https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 Best Sheetal & Bruna UN Digital Cooperation Process - - Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation - DiploFoundation summary of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation IGF and Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation - "Recommendation 5A/BOptions for the Future of Global Digital Cooperation" Paper. - MAG WG on Strengthening the IGF paper Civil Society Statements, positions and inputs - Just Net Coalition Statement - More than 170 Civil Society Groups Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital Governance , 2021. - Letter of intent for engagement with the UN SG's Digital Cooperation efforts , October 2020; - IGF - Civil Society Joint Statement for Main Session on Digital Cooperation , November 2020; - The UN HLP on Digital Cooperation: Top-down Calls for More Cooperation , Internet Governance Project Blog Post - Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UN Secretary-General's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation - Non-State Actors’ Position Paper on the appointment of the UN Tech Envoy - Civil Society Initial Feedback "Developing System-Wide Guidance on Human Rights Due Diligence for Technology Concept Note." Engagements - IGF High-Level session on Digital Cooperation -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Tue Apr 20 10:37:25 2021 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:37:25 -0700 Subject: [Governance] CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions Message-ID: <20210420073725.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.b208130941.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, (Spanish and Portugues versions below) It is a great pleasure to announce that the Latin American edition of the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference will be held online from 14 to 16 July 2021. This first edition of CPDP LatAm will be dedicated to Data Protection in Latin America: Democracy, Innovation and Regulation. See www.cpdp.lat The call for sessions will be open until the 30th of April and, thanks to our first round of sponsorships, we will be able to offer a free CPDP Latam pass to all speakers of the first 50 session proposals we will receive. Links to the call for sessions, including instructions to request an exemption of fees, are listed below: PT https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ ES https://cpdp.lat/es/ EN https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Priority for sponsored access fees will be given to proposals submitted by organisations based in Latin America. The conference programme will be composed of panels exploring themes suggested by the conference participants and selected by our Multistakeholder Advisory Board and Scientific Committee (see the CPDP Latam Team). As a side events, we will also have the AI Summit Latin America and the first BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignty Conference, about which we will share further information during the upcoming weeks. We will start including logos of all sponsors and partners on the CPDP LatAm website and communication material at the end of May/beginning of June. If you wish to participate to CPDP Latam and have the logo of your organisation featured as a partner or want to be one a CPDP LatAm sponsor, please feel free to send an email to contact at cpdp.lat to express your interest. Please feel free to share this message or the links to the Call for sessions through your networks. Best regards Luca ----------------------------------------------------------- Versión castellana Estimad at s colegas, Tenemos el gran placer de anunciarles que la edición Latinoamericana de la Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference se realizará en línea entre los días 14 y 16 de julio de 2021. La primera edición de la CPDP LatAm se dedicará a la Protección de Datos en América Latina: Democracia, Innovación y Regulación. Ver www.cpdp.lat La convocatoria de paneles se quedará abierta hasta el 30 de abril. Gracias a la primera ronda de patrocinios, podremos ofrecer inscripción gratuita a la CPDP LatAm a todos los oradores de las primeras 50 propuestas de paneles que recibiremos. Los enlaces para la convocatoria de paneles, que incluyen instrucciones para solicitar la exención de la tasa de inscripción, encuéntranse abajo: En español: https://cpdp.lat/es/llamada-de-paneles/ En portugués: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ En inglés: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Se dará prioridad para la exención de tasas de inscripción a las propuestas presentadas por organizaciones con sede en América Latina. El programa de la conferencia será compuesto por paneles explorando temas sugeridos por los participantes y seleccionados por nuestro Comité Consultivo Multisectorial y nuestro Comité Científico (ver el CPDP Latam Team). Tendremos también cómo eventos paralelos el AI Summit Latin America y el primer BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre los cuales compartiremos más información durante las próximas semanas. Empezaremos a incluir los logos de todos nuestros patrocinadores y parceros en el sitio web de CPDP LatAm y en nuestros materiales de comunicación entre el final de mayo y el comienzo de junio. Caso ustedes deseen participar de la CPDP LatAm y tener el logo de su organización reconocido como una organización parcera, o caso deseen tornarse patrocinadores de la CPDP LatAm, por favor no duden en contactarnos en el correo contact at cpdp.lat para expresar su interés. Siéntanse libres de compartir este mensaje o los enlaces a través de sus redes. Saludos cordiales, Luca ---------------------------------------------------------------- Versão portuguesa Car at s colegas, É com grande prazer que anunciamos que a edição Latino-Americana da Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) Conference será realizada online dos dias 14 ao 16 de julho de 2021. A primeira edição da CPDP LatAm será dedicada à Proteção de Dados na América Latina: Democracia, Inovação e Regulação. Acessem www.cpdp.lat A chamada para painéis ficará aberta até o dia 30 de abril e, graças à nossa primeira rodada de patrocínios, nós poderemos oferecer o acesso gratuito à Conferência a todos os palestrantes das primeiras 50 propostas de painéis que recebermos. Logo abaixo estão os links para a chamada para painéis, onde instruções para pedir a isenção da taxa podem ser consultadas: Em português: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ Em espanhol: https://cpdp.lat/es/ Em inglês: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ A prioridade para isenção de taxas de inscrição será dada às propostas apresentadas por organizações sediadas na América Latina. O programa da conferência será composto por painéis que explorem temas sugeridos pelos participantes da conferência e selecionados por nosso Conselho Consultivo Multissetorial e nosso Comitê Científico (vejam o CPDP Latam Team). Como eventos paralelos, nós também teremos o AI Summit Latin America e o primeiro BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre os quais compartilharemos mais informações nas próximas semanas. Nós começaremos a incluir os logos de todos os patrocinadores e parceiros no site da CPDP LatAm e em nossos materiais de comunicação entre o final de maio e o início de junho. Caso desejem participar da CPDP LatAm e ter os logos de suas organizações destacados como parceiras, ou desejem ser patrocinadores da CPDP LatAm, por favor sintam-se à vontade para nos enviar um e-mail no endereço contact at cpdp.lat expressando seu interesse. Sintam-se à vontade para divulgar esta mensagem através de suas redes. Atenciosamente, Luca Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation +55 21 3799 5763 t at 1lucabelli Praia de Botafogo, 190 13º andar Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22250-900 luca.belli at fgv.br www.cyberBRICS.info | www.CPDP.lat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0001.png Type: image/png Size: 14321 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0002.png Type: image/png Size: 365 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0004.png Type: image/png Size: 709 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0005.png Type: image/png Size: 668 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Wed Apr 21 12:44:06 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 17:44:06 +0100 Subject: [Governance] UNSG Roadmap on digital cooperation: a brief status-check In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, We've had a few responses to the doodle, which is great to see! This is just a gentle reminder to register your interest & availability for an overview of the UN's Digital Cooperation Roadmap & relevant CS efforts so far by filling out the doodle here: https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 Best Sheetal. On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 12:52, Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > There have been interesting exchanges on this list regarding the UNSG's > Roadmap on digital cooperation, and in particular the proposal for a IGF + > and a new 'high level multistakeholder advisory group' or MHLB. > > Bruna and I thought it might be helpful for those less acquainted with the > discussions and with civil society engagement so far to have an overview of > how civil society has contributed so far to these discussions and what > their current status is. > > We'd be happy to dedicate an hour or so in the coming weeks to catch > people up with what's been happening and answer any questions you may have, > as well as provide a space for reflection on the discussions so far. > > For timezone purposes we suggest holding the call at 1 PM UTC. Please fill > out this doodle with some proposed dates in May: > https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 > > Best > Sheetal & Bruna > > > UN Digital Cooperation Process > > - > - > > Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the > recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation > > - > > DiploFoundation summary of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > > > > IGF and Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation > > - > > "Recommendation 5A/BOptions for the Future of Global Digital > Cooperation" Paper. > > - > > MAG WG on Strengthening the IGF paper > > > > Civil Society Statements, positions and inputs > > - > > Just Net Coalition Statement - More than 170 Civil Society Groups > Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital > Governance > , 2021. > - > > Letter of intent for engagement with the UN SG's Digital Cooperation > efforts > , > October 2020; > - > > IGF - Civil Society Joint Statement for Main Session on Digital > Cooperation > , > November 2020; > - > > The UN HLP on Digital Cooperation: Top-down Calls for More Cooperation > , > Internet Governance Project Blog Post > - > > Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UN > Secretary-General's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation > > - > > Non-State Actors’ Position Paper on the appointment of the UN Tech > Envoy > > - Civil Society Initial Feedback "Developing System-Wide Guidance on > Human Rights Due Diligence for Technology Concept Note." > > > > > Engagements > > - > > IGF High-Level session on Digital Cooperation > > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Wed Apr 21 13:44:18 2021 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2021 10:44:18 -0700 Subject: [Governance] CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions In-Reply-To: <07691BFC-5BD7-48F7-A7E6-4B351CF6EBB5@etges.com.br> Message-ID: <20210421104418.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.be756308a7.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Cara Vanda, tudo bom? Comparative analyses are very welcome as session proposals. I would recommend narrowing down the focus to analyse more specific issues that may be more easily comparable than the entire legislation. There is a quite ample (but non exhaustive) list of suggested topics https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ It may also be better to analyse Latin American countries rather than non LatAm ones (the goal of the conference is indeed to foster debate and research on LatAm privacy and data protection frameworks :)). Hope this helps! Grande abraço Luca ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. --------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Governance] CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions From: "Vanda Scartezini" Date: 4/20/21 3:33 pm To: "LB at lucabelli.net" , "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "forum at justnetcoalition.org" Der Luca During last ICANN 70 DNS WOMEN organization which I am one of founders and nowadays head, held a presentation of Data protection legislation in LATIN AMERICAN and its comparison with US and Australian legislations. If you believe it can be an interesting issue I can get an extract of such panel, where I was one of the panelists talking about LGPD, reorganizing it to fit into the time/schedule on this event. Let me know. Best regards, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados DNS WOMEN Institute Av. Paulista 1159, cj 1004 01311-200- Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Land Line: +55 11 3266.6253 Mobile: + 55 11 98181.1464 Sorry for any typos. From: Governance on behalf of "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" Reply-To: Date: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:37 To: "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "forum at justnetcoalition.org" Subject: [Governance] CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions Dear colleagues, (Spanish and Portugues versions below) It is a great pleasure to announce that the Latin American edition of the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference will be held online from 14 to 16 July 2021. This first edition of CPDP LatAm will be dedicated to Data Protection in Latin America: Democracy, Innovation and Regulation. See www.cpdp.lat The call for sessions will be open until the 30th of April and, thanks to our first round of sponsorships, we will be able to offer a free CPDPLatam pass to all speakers of the first 50 session proposals we will receive. Links to the call for sessions, including instructions to request an exemption of fees, are listed below: PT https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ ES https://cpdp.lat/es/ EN https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Priority for sponsored access fees will be given to proposals submitted by organisations based in Latin America. The conference programme will be composed of panels exploring themes suggested by the conference participants and selected by our Multistakeholder Advisory Board and Scientific Committee (see the CPDP Latam Team). As a side events, we will also have the AI Summit Latin America and the first BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignty Conference, about which we will share further information during the upcoming weeks. We will start including logos of all sponsors and partners on the CPDP LatAm website and communication material at the end of May/beginning of June. If you wish to participate to CPDP Latam and have the logo of your organisation featured as a partner or want to be one a CPDP LatAm sponsor, please feel free to send an email to contact at cpdp.lat to express your interest. Please feel free to share this message or the links to the Call for sessions through your networks. Best regards Luca ----------------------------------------------------------- Versión castellana Estimad at s colegas, Tenemos el gran placer de anunciarles que la edición Latinoamericana de la Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference se realizará en línea entre los días 14 y 16 de julio de 2021. La primera edición de la CPDP LatAm se dedicará a la Protección de Datos en América Latina: Democracia, Innovación y Regulación. Ver www.cpdp.lat La convocatoria de paneles se quedará abierta hasta el 30 de abril. Gracias a la primera ronda de patrocinios, podremos ofrecer inscripción gratuita a la CPDP LatAm a todos los oradores de las primeras 50 propuestas de paneles que recibiremos. Los enlaces para la convocatoria de paneles, que incluyen instrucciones para solicitar la exención de la tasa de inscripción, encuéntranse abajo: En español: https://cpdp.lat/es/llamada-de-paneles/ En portugués: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ En inglés: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Se dará prioridad para la exención de tasas de inscripción a las propuestas presentadas por organizaciones con sede en América Latina. El programa de la conferencia será compuesto por paneles explorando temas sugeridos por los participantes y seleccionados por nuestro Comité Consultivo Multisectorial y nuestro Comité Científico (ver el CPDP Latam Team). Tendremos también cómo eventos paralelos el AI Summit Latin America y el primer BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre los cuales compartiremos más información durante las próximas semanas. Empezaremos a incluir los logos de todos nuestros patrocinadores y parceros en el sitio web de CPDP LatAm y en nuestros materiales de comunicación entre el final de mayo y el comienzo de junio. Caso ustedes deseen participar de la CPDP LatAm y tener el logo de su organización reconocido como una organización parcera, o caso deseen tornarse patrocinadores de la CPDP LatAm, por favor no duden en contactarnos en el correo contact at cpdp.lat para expresar su interés. Siéntanse libres de compartir este mensaje o los enlaces a través de sus redes. Saludos cordiales, Luca ---------------------------------------------------------------- Versão portuguesa Car at s colegas, É com grande prazer que anunciamos que a edição Latino-Americana da Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) Conference será realizada online dos dias 14 ao 16 de julho de 2021. A primeira edição da CPDP LatAm será dedicada à Proteção de Dados na América Latina: Democracia, Inovação e Regulação. Acessem www.cpdp.lat A chamada para painéis ficará aberta até o dia 30 de abrile, graças à nossa primeira rodada de patrocínios, nós poderemos oferecer o acesso gratuito à Conferência a todos os palestrantes das primeiras 50 propostas de painéis que recebermos. Logo abaixo estão os links para a chamada para painéis, onde instruções para pedir a isenção da taxa podem ser consultadas: Em português: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ Em espanhol: https://cpdp.lat/es/ Em inglês: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ A prioridade para isenção de taxas de inscrição será dada às propostas apresentadas por organizações sediadas na América Latina. O programa da conferência será composto por painéis que explorem temas sugeridos pelos participantes da conferência e selecionados por nosso Conselho Consultivo Multissetorial e nosso Comitê Científico (vejam o CPDP Latam Team). Como eventos paralelos, nós também teremos o AI Summit Latin America e o primeiro BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre os quais compartilharemos mais informações nas próximas semanas. Nós começaremos a incluir os logos de todos os patrocinadores e parceiros no site da CPDP LatAm e em nossos materiais de comunicação entre o final de maio e o início de junho. Caso desejem participar da CPDP LatAm e ter os logos de suas organizações destacados como parceiras, ou desejem ser patrocinadores da CPDP LatAm, por favor sintam-se à vontade para nos enviar um e-mail no endereço contact at cpdp.lat expressando seu interesse. Sintam-se à vontade para divulgar esta mensagem através de suas redes. Atenciosamente, Luca Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation +55 21 3799 5763 t at 1lucabelli Praia de Botafogo, 190 13º andar Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22250-900 luca.belli at fgv.br www.cyberBRICS.info | www.CPDP.lat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -- Governance mailing list Governance at lists.igcaucus.org https://lists.igcaucus.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 14322 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 366 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 710 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 669 bytes Desc: not available URL: From bruna.mrtns at gmail.com Mon Apr 26 09:51:17 2021 From: bruna.mrtns at gmail.com (Bruna Martins dos Santos) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 10:51:17 -0300 Subject: [Governance] UNSG Roadmap on digital cooperation: a brief status-check In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey all, Hope this email finds you well and safe! This is another reminder about our doodle for the* Overview of the UN's Digital Cooperation Roadmap & relevant CS efforts* Meeting: https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 So far May 4th is the winning date, but we will close this doodle tomorrow COB, so please register your interest and availability! Best, Bruna and Sheetal On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:44 PM Sheetal Kumar wrote: > Dear all, > > We've had a few responses to the doodle, which is great to see! > > This is just a gentle reminder to register your interest & availability > for an overview of the UN's Digital Cooperation Roadmap & relevant CS > efforts so far by filling out the doodle here: > https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 > > > Best > Sheetal. > > On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 12:52, Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> There have been interesting exchanges on this list regarding the UNSG's >> Roadmap on digital cooperation, and in particular the proposal for a IGF + >> and a new 'high level multistakeholder advisory group' or MHLB. >> >> Bruna and I thought it might be helpful for those less acquainted with >> the discussions and with civil society engagement so far to have an >> overview of how civil society has contributed so far to these discussions >> and what their current status is. >> >> We'd be happy to dedicate an hour or so in the coming weeks to catch >> people up with what's been happening and answer any questions you may have, >> as well as provide a space for reflection on the discussions so far. >> >> For timezone purposes we suggest holding the call at 1 PM UTC. Please >> fill out this doodle with some proposed dates in May: >> https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 >> >> Best >> Sheetal & Bruna >> >> >> UN Digital Cooperation Process >> >> - >> - >> >> Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the >> recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation >> >> - >> >> DiploFoundation summary of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation >> >> >> >> IGF and Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation >> >> - >> >> "Recommendation 5A/BOptions for the Future of Global Digital >> Cooperation" Paper. >> >> - >> >> MAG WG on Strengthening the IGF paper >> >> >> >> Civil Society Statements, positions and inputs >> >> - >> >> Just Net Coalition Statement - More than 170 Civil Society Groups >> Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital >> Governance >> , 2021. >> - >> >> Letter of intent for engagement with the UN SG's Digital Cooperation >> efforts >> , >> October 2020; >> - >> >> IGF - Civil Society Joint Statement for Main Session on Digital >> Cooperation >> , >> November 2020; >> - >> >> The UN HLP on Digital Cooperation: Top-down Calls for More Cooperation >> , >> Internet Governance Project Blog Post >> - >> >> Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UN >> Secretary-General's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation >> >> - >> >> Non-State Actors’ Position Paper on the appointment of the UN Tech >> Envoy >> >> - Civil Society Initial Feedback "Developing System-Wide Guidance on >> Human Rights Due Diligence for Technology Concept Note." >> >> >> >> >> Engagements >> >> - >> >> IGF High-Level session on Digital Cooperation >> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Sheetal Kumar* > Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL > T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | > PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 > DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| > > > > -- *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: bruna.martinsantos bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Mon Apr 26 16:37:59 2021 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2021 22:37:59 +0200 Subject: [Governance] Fwd: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2021 Call for Session Proposals In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Fyi ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Chengetai Masango Date: Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 8:57 PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] IGF 2021 Call for Session Proposals To: IGF Maglist Dear All, The IGF2021 call for session proposals is now published: IGF 2021 Call for session proposals | Internet Governance Forum (intgovforum.org) The deadline for submissions is *26 May.* We would be grateful if you could all share this information through your respective networks. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org To unsubscribe or manage your options please go to http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sheetal at gp-digital.org Tue Apr 27 13:03:14 2021 From: sheetal at gp-digital.org (Sheetal Kumar) Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2021 18:03:14 +0100 Subject: [Governance] UNSG Roadmap on digital cooperation: a brief status-check In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Thank you for taking the time to fill out the doodle. The time/date that works for most is *12 PM UTC on Tuesday, 04 May. * I have therefore set up a room to meet in. Please see the joining details below. Note, the timezone indicated is BST (UTC+1) See you there! Best Sheetal. Tuesday, 4 May 2021 13:00 | (UTC+01:00) Dublin, Edinburgh, Lisbon, London | 1 hr Join meeting *More ways to join:* *Join from the meeting link* https://globalpartnersdigital-aae.my.webex.com/globalpartnersdigital-aae.my/j.php?MTID=m83d95e9858c11c41a6b40091b8af3683 *Join by meeting number* Meeting number (access code): 163 789 5578 Meeting password: 8DVfYTbCk62 (83839822 from phones and video systems) *Tap to join from a mobile device (attendees only)* +44-20-7660-8149,,1637895578#83839822# <%2B44-20-7660-8149,,*01*1637895578%2383839822%23*01*> United Kingdom Toll Some mobile devices may ask attendees to enter a numeric password. *Join by phone* +44-20-7660-8149 United Kingdom Toll Global call-in numbers *Join by video system, application or Skype for business* Dial 1637895578 at webex.com You can also dial 62.109.219.4 and enter your meeting number. On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 14:51, Bruna Martins dos Santos < bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey all, > > Hope this email finds you well and safe! > > This is another reminder about our doodle for the* Overview of the UN's > Digital Cooperation Roadmap & relevant CS efforts* Meeting: > https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 > > So far May 4th is the winning date, but we will close this doodle tomorrow > COB, so please register your interest and availability! > > Best, > Bruna and Sheetal > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 1:44 PM Sheetal Kumar > wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> We've had a few responses to the doodle, which is great to see! >> >> This is just a gentle reminder to register your interest & availability >> for an overview of the UN's Digital Cooperation Roadmap & relevant CS >> efforts so far by filling out the doodle here: >> https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 >> >> >> Best >> Sheetal. >> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2021 at 12:52, Sheetal Kumar >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> There have been interesting exchanges on this list regarding the UNSG's >>> Roadmap on digital cooperation, and in particular the proposal for a IGF + >>> and a new 'high level multistakeholder advisory group' or MHLB. >>> >>> Bruna and I thought it might be helpful for those less acquainted with >>> the discussions and with civil society engagement so far to have an >>> overview of how civil society has contributed so far to these discussions >>> and what their current status is. >>> >>> We'd be happy to dedicate an hour or so in the coming weeks to catch >>> people up with what's been happening and answer any questions you may have, >>> as well as provide a space for reflection on the discussions so far. >>> >>> For timezone purposes we suggest holding the call at 1 PM UTC. Please >>> fill out this doodle with some proposed dates in May: >>> https://doodle.com/poll/hxvk5ribmq4sxk78 >>> >>> Best >>> Sheetal & Bruna >>> >>> >>> UN Digital Cooperation Process >>> >>> - >>> - >>> >>> Road map for digital cooperation: implementation of the >>> recommendations of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation >>> >>> - >>> >>> DiploFoundation summary of the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation >>> >>> >>> >>> IGF and Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation >>> >>> - >>> >>> "Recommendation 5A/BOptions for the Future of Global Digital >>> Cooperation" Paper. >>> >>> - >>> >>> MAG WG on Strengthening the IGF paper >>> >>> >>> >>> Civil Society Statements, positions and inputs >>> >>> - >>> >>> Just Net Coalition Statement - More than 170 Civil Society Groups >>> Worldwide Oppose Plans for a Big Tech Dominated Body for Global Digital >>> Governance >>> , >>> 2021. >>> - >>> >>> Letter of intent for engagement with the UN SG's Digital Cooperation >>> efforts >>> , >>> October 2020; >>> - >>> >>> IGF - Civil Society Joint Statement for Main Session on Digital >>> Cooperation >>> , >>> November 2020; >>> - >>> >>> The UN HLP on Digital Cooperation: Top-down Calls for More >>> Cooperation >>> , >>> Internet Governance Project Blog Post >>> - >>> >>> Open letter on the interpretation of paragraph 93(a) of the UN >>> Secretary-General's Roadmap on Digital Cooperation >>> >>> - >>> >>> Non-State Actors’ Position Paper on the appointment of the UN Tech >>> Envoy >>> >>> - Civil Society Initial Feedback "Developing System-Wide Guidance on >>> Human Rights Due Diligence for Technology Concept Note." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Engagements >>> >>> - >>> >>> IGF High-Level session on Digital Cooperation >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> *Sheetal Kumar* >> Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >> >> >> >> > > -- > > *Bruna Martins dos Santos * > > Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research > > > Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede > Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN > > Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus > > Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: > bruna.martinsantos > bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com > -- *Sheetal Kumar* Senior Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| Time zone: UTC | M: +44 (0)7739569514 | PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 29 03:40:42 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:40:42 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY=3A_Legal_interception_of_co?= =?utf-8?q?mmunications_=E2=80=93_The_inextricable_issue_of_backdoo?= =?utf-8?q?rs_in_encryption?= Message-ID: The 4th in the Encrypt Europe 2021 webinar series. EE, along with the Internet Society and others, are partners in the Global Encryption Coalition . ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday April 29 2021, at 10:00-11:00 CEST (08:00-09:00 UTC) Encryption Europe and SEALD invite a panel of experts invited to share their thoughts on the complicated question: Legal interception of communications - The inextricable issue of backdoors " [image: livestream] On *Thursday April 29 2021*, at *10:00-11:00 CEST* (08:00-09:00 UTC) *Encryption Europe * and *SEALD* invite a panel of experts invited to share their thoughts on the complicated question: *Legal interception of communications - The inextricable issue of backdoors in encryption *. Anyone who has heard of encryption knows that backdoors are one of the few options for law enforcement to intercept encrypted criminal communications. However, the same vulnerabilities can be used by malicious actors to penetrate the IT systems of companies or public agencies. Is there a fair balance between the use of backdoors and encrypted solutions that can protect citizens and what are the risks for industry players? *PRESENTATION* *Timothée Rebours*, co-founder and CEO, SEALD *PANEL* *Timothée Rebours*, co-founder and CEO - SEALD; *Alexandre Dulaunoy* - Head of CIRCL /SECURITYMADEIN.LU; *Gregory Nou*, Head of Group Resilience Eurofins, CISO of the Year 2018; *Eric McDonald*, Head Storyteller of TunnelBear *MODERATOR* *Grégory Wawszyniak Dumont*, Public relations manager - Encryption Europe *LIVESTREAM http://livestream.com/internetsociety/encrypteurope4 * *PARTICIPATE VIA BBB: https://landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/k3c9b6 * *REAL TIME TEXT: https://bit.ly/3vspCbT * *TWITTER #EncryptEurope @EncryptEurope @SealdHQ #GlobalEncryption #CyberSecurity @ReboursT @adulau @GregNou @theTunnelBear* *SIMULCASTS* *https://twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/encrypteurope4 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13989/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From arsenebaguma at gmail.com Thu Apr 29 08:30:46 2021 From: arsenebaguma at gmail.com (=?utf-8?Q?Ars=C3=A8ne_Tungali?=) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 14:30:46 +0200 Subject: [Governance] Do you plan to come to 16th IGF in Katowice (6-10 Dec 2021)? Message-ID: <60BF3C7B-9E3F-4D0D-8D7B-22442158EF74@gmail.com> Dear All, The 16th annual IGF meeting will be hosted by the Government of Poland in Katowice from 6 to 10 December 2021. The Secretariat and the Host Country would appreciate if you would inform if you plan to come to Katowice for the 16th IGF by responding to this short poll:https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2021-participation-poll (please note that you can re-take the poll in case you would need to change your response). Thanks, Arsene -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joly at punkcast.com Thu Apr 29 09:23:10 2021 From: joly at punkcast.com (Joly MacFie) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:23:10 -0400 Subject: [Governance] =?utf-8?q?WEBCAST_TODAY_/_AUJOURD=27HUI_=E2=80=93_C?= =?utf-8?q?entral_Africa_Peering_Forum_2021_/_le_Forum_sur_le_Peeri?= =?utf-8?q?ng_en_Afrique_Centrale?= Message-ID: This is under way, but with just two panelists Alan Aina and Eddy Kayihura . Quality not quantity! Ceci est en cours, mais avec seulement deux panélistes Alan Aina et Eddy Kayihura. Qualité, pas quantité! ISOC Live posted: "On Thursday 29 April 2021, at 13:00-15:00 UTC, for the second year in a row, the Central Africa Peering Forum (CAPF) will bring together local, regional, and global peering ecosystems experts. Organized by the peering community in Central Africa and supp" [image: LIVESTREAM (English)] On *Thursday 29 April 2021*, at *13:00-15:00 UTC*, for the second year in a row, the *Central Africa Peering Forum * (CAPF) will bring together local, regional, and global peering ecosystems experts. Organized by the peering community in Central Africa and supported by the *Internet Society *, the event will address data protection, the creation and distribution of Internet content, online services, and how to create and maintain technical communities. The event will culminate in concrete recommendations for a more stable and secure Internet infrastructure in Central Africa. This year, the virtual event will be part of the *International Exhibition on Information Technology and Innovation * (OSIANE 2021) organized by the nongovernmental organization *PRATIC* (Promotion, Reflection and Analysis on Information and Communication Technologies). [image: LIVESTREAM (Francais)] Le *jeudi 29 avril 2021*, de *13h00 à 15h00 UTC*, pour la deuxième année consécutive, le *Forum sur le Peering en Afrique Centrale * (FPAC), en Anglais, Central Africa Peering Forum (CAPF) réunira des experts de l’écosystème du Peering de la sous-région et d’ailleurs. Organisé par la communauté du Peering en Afrique centrale, avec l’appui de l’*Internet Society *, l’évènement portera sur la protection des données, la création et la distribution de contenu Internet et comment créer et maintenir des communautés techniques. L’événement aboutira à des recommandations concrètes pour une infrastructure Internet plus stable et plus sécurisée en Afrique centrale. Cette année, l’événement virtuel se tiendra dans le cadre du *Salon international des technologies de l’information et de l’innovation * (OSIANE 2021) organisé par l’organisation non gouvernementale (ONG) *PRATIC* (Promotion, Réflexion et Analyse sur les Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication). *SPEAKERS / CONFÉRENCIERS* *Alain Aina*, WACREN *Gael Hernandez*, Packet Clearing House (PCH) *Eddy Kayihura*, African Network Information Centre (AFRINIC) *Thys Kazad*, Facebook *Ghislain Nkeramugaba*, Internet Society *MODERATORS / MODERATEURS* *Ghislain Nkeramugaba*, Internet Society *Olivier Leloustre*, Cameroon Internet Exchange Point (CAMIX) *LIVESTREAM (ENGLISH)* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/capf21 * *LIVESTREAM (FRANÇAIS)* *http://livestream.com/internetsociety/fpac21 * *PARTICIPATE VIA ZOOM* *https://bit.ly/32VgNey * (EN/FR) *TWITTER #CAPF21 #FPAC21 #OSIANE21 #IXP @65db9ffd8997492 @elgaelo @ekayihura Thys Kazad @nk_ghislain @leloustre* *SIMULCASTS* *https://twitter.com/ISOC_Live/ * *https://www.twitch.tv/isoclive * *https://www.facebook.com/InternetSociety/live * *https://www.facebook.com/ISOCAfrica/live * *ARCHIVE* *https://archive.org/details/capf21 * *Permalink* https://isoc.live/13980/ - -- -------------------------------------- Joly MacFie +12185659365 -------------------------------------- - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From LB at lucabelli.net Thu Apr 29 09:46:46 2021 From: LB at lucabelli.net (LB at lucabelli.net) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:46:46 -0700 Subject: [Governance] CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions In-Reply-To: <20210420073725.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.b208130941.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Message-ID: <20210429064646.2700328f4bbfc197480209526f2a1375.abc8a468c9.mailapi@email07.godaddy.com> Dear colleagues, Just a friendly reminder that the deadline to submit CPDP LatAm session proposals is tomorrow (but it will be possible to submit proposals until Sunday 😉) All the best --------- Original Message --------- Subject: CPDP LatAm Call for Sessions From: "LB at lucabelli.net" Date: 4/20/21 10:37 am To: "GIGANET-MEMBERS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" , "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , "forum at justnetcoalition.org" Dear colleagues, (Spanish and Portuguese versions below) It is a great pleasure to announce that the Latin American edition of the Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference will be held online from 14 to 16 July 2021. This first edition of CPDP LatAm will be dedicated to Data Protection in Latin America: Democracy, Innovation and Regulation. See www.cpdp.lat The call for sessions will be open until the 30th of April and, thanks to our first round of sponsorships, we will be able to offer a free CPDP Latam pass to all speakers of the first 50 session proposals we will receive. Links to the call for sessions, including instructions to request an exemption of fees, are listed below: PT https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ ES https://cpdp.lat/es/ EN https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Priority for sponsored access fees will be given to proposals submitted by organisations based in Latin America. The conference programme will be composed of panels exploring themes suggested by the conference participants and selected by our Multistakeholder Advisory Board and Scientific Committee (see the CPDP Latam Team). As a side events, we will also have the AI Summit Latin America and the first BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignty Conference, about which we will share further information during the upcoming weeks. We will start including logos of all sponsors and partners on the CPDP LatAm website and communication material at the end of May/beginning of June. If you wish to participate to CPDP Latam and have the logo of your organisation featured as a partner or want to be one a CPDP LatAm sponsor, please feel free to send an email to contact at cpdp.lat to express your interest. Please feel free to share this message or the links to the Call for sessions through your networks. Best regards Luca ----------------------------------------------------------- Versión castellana Estimad at s colegas, Tenemos el gran placer de anunciarles que la edición Latinoamericana de la Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) conference se realizará en línea entre los días 14 y 16 de julio de 2021. La primera edición de la CPDP LatAm se dedicará a la Protección de Datos en América Latina: Democracia, Innovación y Regulación. Ver www.cpdp.lat La convocatoria de paneles se quedará abierta hasta el 30 de abril. Gracias a la primera ronda de patrocinios, podremos ofrecer inscripción gratuita a la CPDP LatAm a todos los oradores de las primeras 50 propuestas de paneles que recibiremos. Los enlaces para la convocatoria de paneles, que incluyen instrucciones para solicitar la exención de la tasa de inscripción, encuéntranse abajo: En español: https://cpdp.lat/es/llamada-de-paneles/ En portugués: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ En inglés: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ Se dará prioridad para la exención de tasas de inscripción a las propuestas presentadas por organizaciones con sede en América Latina. El programa de la conferencia será compuesto por paneles explorando temas sugeridos por los participantes y seleccionados por nuestro Comité Consultivo Multisectorial y nuestro Comité Científico (ver el CPDP Latam Team). Tendremos también cómo eventos paralelos el AI Summit Latin America y el primer BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre los cuales compartiremos más información durante las próximas semanas. Empezaremos a incluir los logos de todos nuestros patrocinadores y parceros en el sitio web de CPDP LatAm y en nuestros materiales de comunicación entre el final de mayo y el comienzo de junio. Caso ustedes deseen participar de la CPDP LatAm y tener el logo de su organización reconocido como una organización parcera, o caso deseen tornarse patrocinadores de la CPDP LatAm, por favor no duden en contactarnos en el correo contact at cpdp.lat para expresar su interés. Siéntanse libres de compartir este mensaje o los enlaces a través de sus redes. Saludos cordiales, Luca ---------------------------------------------------------------- Versão portuguesa Car at s colegas, É com grande prazer que anunciamos que a edição Latino-Americana da Computers, Privacy and Data Protection (CPDP) Conference será realizada online dos dias 14 ao 16 de julho de 2021. A primeira edição da CPDP LatAm será dedicada à Proteção de Dados na América Latina: Democracia, Inovação e Regulação. Acessem www.cpdp.lat A chamada para painéis ficará aberta até o dia 30 de abril e, graças à nossa primeira rodada de patrocínios, nós poderemos oferecer o acesso gratuito à Conferência a todos os palestrantes das primeiras 50 propostas de painéis que recebermos. Logo abaixo estão os links para a chamada para painéis, onde instruções para pedir a isenção da taxa podem ser consultadas: Em português: https://cpdp.lat/pt-br/paineis/ Em espanhol: https://cpdp.lat/es/ Em inglês: https://cpdp.lat/en/call-for-panels/ A prioridade para isenção de taxas de inscrição será dada às propostas apresentadas por organizações sediadas na América Latina. O programa da conferência será composto por painéis que explorem temas sugeridos pelos participantes da conferência e selecionados por nosso Conselho Consultivo Multissetorial e nosso Comitê Científico (vejam o CPDP Latam Team). Como eventos paralelos, nós também teremos o AI Summit Latin America e o primeiro BRICS Data Protection and Digital Sovereignity Conference, sobre os quais compartilharemos mais informações nas próximas semanas. Nós começaremos a incluir os logos de todos os patrocinadores e parceiros no site da CPDP LatAm e em nossos materiais de comunicação entre o final de maio e o início de junho. Caso desejem participar da CPDP LatAm e ter os logos de suas organizações destacados como parceiras, ou desejem ser patrocinadores da CPDP LatAm, por favor sintam-se à vontade para nos enviar um e-mail no endereço contact at cpdp.lat expressando seu interesse. Sintam-se à vontade para divulgar esta mensagem através de suas redes. Atenciosamente, Luca Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation +55 21 3799 5763 t at 1lucabelli Praia de Botafogo, 190 13º andar Botafogo - Rio de Janeiro, RJ - CEP: 22250-900 luca.belli at fgv.br www.cyberBRICS.info | www.CPDP.lat ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luca Belli, PhD Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, FGV Law School, Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé, Centre de Droit Public Comparé, Université Paris 2 www.cyberbrics.info | www.cpdp.lat | www.internet-governance.fgv.br t: @1lucabelli ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message, as well as any attached document, may contain personal data and information that is confidential and privileged and is intended only for the use of the addressee named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying or distribution of this email or attached documents, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Please contact the sender if you believe you have received this email by mistake. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0001.png Type: image/png Size: 14321 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0002.png Type: image/png Size: 365 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0004.png Type: image/png Size: 709 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image0005.png Type: image/png Size: 668 bytes Desc: not available URL: