<br><div><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558"></a>In light of this discussion did anyone notice this report? <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558</a></div>
<div><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558"></a>I thought it was particularly interesting in our world of smoke and mirrors and dust in the air how effectively sleight of hand had directed all attention away from the fact that somewhere at the base of the issue the US attempts to keep information secret had failed. The US leaked before Wikileaks leaked.</div>
<div>Deirdre<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 9 December 2010 10:17, Lee W McKnight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lmcknigh@syr.edu">lmcknigh@syr.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks, but about supporting open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC.<br>
<br>
So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans.<br>
<br>
Lee<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: <a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a> [<a href="mailto:governance-request@lists.cpsr.org">governance-request@lists.cpsr.org</a>] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM<br>
To: Jeremy Malcolm; <a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<div class="im">Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC<br>
<br>
>Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.<br>
<br>
Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....<br>
<br>
While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
From: Jeremy Malcolm <<a href="mailto:jeremy@ciroap.org">jeremy@ciroap.org</a>><br>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800<br>
To: <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>>, Ian Peter <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC<br>
<br>
On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:<br>
<br>
So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.<br>
<br>
and Twitter.<br>
<br>
I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!<br>
<br>
Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"? Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Jeremy Malcolm<br>
Project Coordinator<br>
Consumers International<br>
Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East<br>
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia<br>
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599<br>
CI is 50<br>
Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010.<br>
Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world.<br>
<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a> <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/50" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/50</a>><br>
<br>
Read our email confidentiality notice <<a href="http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765" target="_blank">http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765</a>> . Don't print this email unless necessary.<br>
<br>
<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">____________________________________________________________<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:<br>
<a href="mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org">governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org</a><br>
<br>
For all list information and functions, see:<br>
<a href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance" target="_blank">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a><br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t" target="_blank">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979<br>
</div>