I agree on timeline. Here details on it:<br><br>11:40amEST, Thursday - Carol cleaning it up <br>10amEST, Friday - Letter closed for edits, so Michael can proceed with final clean up<br>12:00EST, Friday - we need this letter to be in a site (Jeremy?)<br>
12:30EST, Friday opens for signatures in the website <br>Monday morning - deliver in DC (who will do this?)<br><br>Makes sense?<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org" target="_blank">anriette@apc.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear all<br>
<br>
Just thinking through the timeline... as Jeremy won't be online for a<br>
while longer. If we want to deliver on Monday afternoon Washington DC<br>
time, we would still want to give people enough time to sign on... so we<br>
would still want to have the final ready by around 12h00 UTC/GMT Friday<br>
so that we can circulate it for signatures on Friday in and Monday<br>
morning. That should allow enough time for people in all time zones to<br>
have a chance to look at the letter, circulate and decide on signing on.<br>
<br>
Michael, why don't you try to do a clean version later today (as you<br>
have offered) so that Jeremy has something to work with when he starts<br>
his day tomorrow?<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Anriette<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 13/06/2013 17:19, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:<br>
> Dear all (copying WebWeWant and IRP to keep everyone in the same loop)<br>
><br>
> I had quick consult with Deborah Brown and while there are pros and cons<br>
> to delaying, it seems that strong sign-on from a large number of<br>
> organisations is very important. So I would also be happy for us go for<br>
> Monday unless there are strong suggestions to the contrary. It also<br>
> seems as if the exact delivery channel has not yet been figured out yet.<br>
> I think it would make sense for someone based in Washington DC to do the<br>
> handing over personally on our behalf. That would be FreePress, CDT,<br>
> HRW... correct?<br>
><br>
> For those who might not have it handy, the letter is being developed here:<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here" target="_blank">http://igcaucus.org:9001/p/your_name_here</a><br>
><br>
> Discussion of the contents is taking place on <a href="mailto:bestbits@lists.bestbits.net">bestbits@lists.bestbits.net</a><br>
><br>
> I suggest we let Jeremy Malcolm decide when and how to deal with the<br>
> final tidying up. Jeremy, you have lots of volunteers to help with that.<br>
><br>
> Best<br>
><br>
> Anriette<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On 13/06/2013 16:16, Carolina Rossini wrote:<br>
>> I like parminder suggestions on non-US citizens.<br>
>><br>
>> I also agree with suggestion on delivering this on Monday.<br>
>><br>
>> Who could take a final look for style and grammar? Much of it was lost<br>
>> during the editing process. I can try, but it would be better if a native<br>
>> english speaker take the lead on the final round.<br>
>><br>
>> Carol<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:08 AM, parminder<br>
> <<a href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>wrote:<br>
>>> The statement has turned out well. However, I remain concerned about the<br>
>>> fact that the issue of non citizens related content surveillance has<br>
> not at<br>
>>> all been addressed by the US authorities. They havent bothered to say a<br>
>>> word on it (not that it is easily defensible). I would like the group to<br>
>>> consider adding the following paragraph somewhere......<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> "We are extremely disappointed that, in all the post 'disclosures'<br>
>>> statements, US authorities have only insisted that there was no access<br>
>>> obtained to content related to *US citizens*, and just their<br>
>>> communication meta-data was collected. There has not been a word on the<br>
>>> issue of large-scale access to content related to non US citizens,<br>
> which is<br>
>>> a violation of their human rights. The focussing of the US authorities on<br>
>>> the difference between treatment of US citizens and non-citizens on an<br>
>>> issue which essentially relates to violation of human rights is very<br>
>>> problematic. Human rights are universal, and every government must<br>
> refrain<br>
>>> from violating them for all people, and not merely for its citizens. The<br>
>>> current and future US law and practices on this matter should take<br>
> note of<br>
>>> this. "<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> I still have issues with the role of the involved companies, which I<br>
>>> will address in a separate email. I am fine though to address them<br>
>>> separately, through a possible second statement.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Meanwhile the second sentence in the following somehow looks not quite<br>
>>> right.<br>
>>><br>
>>> "The introduction of untargeted surveillance mechanisms at the heart of<br>
>>> global digital communications severely threatens human rights in the<br>
>>> digital age. *These new forms of decentralized power reflect fundamental<br>
>>> shifts in the structure of information systems in modern<br>
> societies**.*[3] and<br>
>>> aAny step in this direction needs to be scrutinized through ample, deep<br>
>>> and transparent debate. Interference with the human rights of citizens by<br>
>>> any government, their own or foreign, is unacceptable."<br>
>>><br>
>>> What is being referred to as a 'form of decentralised power'? From the<br>
>>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people's<br>
> power, but<br>
>>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged between the<br>
>>> other two sentences...<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> parminder<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agreed from the<br>
>>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be the US<br>
>>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does foreground<br>
>>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to do in my<br>
>>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't come out at<br>
>>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs <<a href="mailto:anja@internetdemocracy.in">anja@internetdemocracy.in</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we should release this<br>
>>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nnenna and<br>
> others<br>
>>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why you feel<br>
> tomorrow<br>
>>>> is a better idea.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma <<a href="mailto:nnenna75@gmail.com">nnenna75@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> Hi people<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I will say submit on Monday. When you kick off the week with it, you<br>
>>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it..<br>
>>>>> I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight.. because that will<br>
>>>>> overshadow any other Internet news...<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> I am booked for the very first Africa Internet Summit in Lusaka next<br>
>>>>> week. I do hope to be able to draw attention to the statement, as<br>
> well as<br>
>>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Best of the day..<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Nnenna<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen<br>
> <<a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a>>wrote:<br>
>> Greetings everyone<br>
>><br>
>> Content is coming along well.<br>
>><br>
>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people until<br>
>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finalise it,<br>
>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Friday for<br>
>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the business day<br>
>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC).<br>
>><br>
>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to get<br>
>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Only<br>
>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the<br>
>> Americas.<br>
>><br>
>> Will this work?<br>
>><br>
>> Anriette<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --<br>
>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <a href="tel:%2B91%209899028053" value="+919899028053">+91 9899028053</a> | @anjakovacs<br>
>>>> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> --<br>
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs<br>
>>> The Internet Democracy Project<br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="tel:%2B91%209899028053" value="+919899028053">+91 9899028053</a> | @anjakovacs<br>
>>> <a href="http://www.internetdemocracy.in" target="_blank">www.internetdemocracy.in</a><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
<br>
--<br>
------------------------------------------------------<br>
anriette esterhuysen <a href="mailto:anriette@apc.org">anriette@apc.org</a><br>
executive director, association for progressive communications<br>
<a href="http://www.apc.org" target="_blank">www.apc.org</a><br>
po box 29755, melville 2109<br>
south africa<br>
tel/fax <a href="tel:%2B27%2011%20726%201692" value="+27117261692">+27 11 726 1692</a><br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div><b>Carolina Rossini</b> <div><div><font color="#3333ff"><a href="http://carolinarossini.net/" target="_blank">http://carolinarossini.net/</a></font></div>
<div><font color="#666666">+ 1 6176979389</font><br><font color="#666666">*</font><a href="mailto:carolina.rossini@gmail.com" style="color:rgb(102,102,102)" target="_blank">carolina.rossini@gmail.com</a><font color="#666666">*</font></div>
</div></div><div><font color="#666666">skype: carolrossini</font></div><div><font color="#666666">@carolinarossini</font></div><div><br></div>