<div dir="auto"><div>Dear Norbert,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My comments are inline:</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, 9:58 pm Norbert Bollow, <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Sala,<br>
<br>
Well, if this drafting process continues —without taking a step back,<br>
and without changing the focus— and then a consensus call comes, then I<br>
will formally oppose then, for the reasons that I have explained.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif">Thank you for your comments about changing the focus from just Huang Qi to addressing the US. As mentioned in my other emails, all countries are guilty of varying degrees of human rights violations, including but not limited to China, US, France, Australia, Belgium, Japan etc. I am not sure what benefit there is from turning the statement into a geopolitical war as it does nothing to serve our intention of highlighting Huan Qi's plight. Huan Qi has serious medical conditions and his family has been going through persecution, see the link to the article by the Committee Protecting Journalists. </span><br></div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:sans-serif"><br></span></div><div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif">Huan Qi is civil society and a digital human rights activist and I would like to think that if what happened to him happened to any one of us, that less time would be spent turning it into a geopolitical issue to addressing the conduct and calling for his release. If anything, the DRAFT text in its current form highlights the Internet Rights and Principles which are published on the UN OHRCR website which was developed by the Dynamic Coalition of Human Rights within the IGF processes and many members are members of the IGC. It also points to China being on the Human Right Council this year and as such it should take leadership and lead by example.</font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif"><br></font></div><div dir="auto"><font face="sans-serif">The etherpad also has a list of international instruments that China has signed and ratified.</font></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
In regard to the goal expressed in the statement "The other purpose in<br>
initiating this is to demonstrate to newer subscribers that there is a<br>
process in which people initiate drafting of statements before the IGC<br>
releases this to any forum. Even if the statement never reaches<br>
consensus, then at least we would have demonstrated the process." —<br>
Please feel absolutely free to initiate a demonstration of a good<br>
drafting process either by appropriately addressing not only the<br>
situation of Huang Qi's sentencing, but also the broader geopolitical<br>
context of the hypocritical accusation by the US which is also guilty<br>
of similar suppression of whistleblowers' online speech on grounds of<br>
"leaking state secrets", or by initiating a drafting process on any<br>
other topic in which IGC's ability to credibly focus on just one aspect<br>
of a larger problem has not been compromised. <br>
<br>If you are still adamant about a change of focus, I would recommend that you draft an entire text to reflect your suggestion for a change of focus.<br><br>
Or in the alternative we can of course continue the present process in<br>
a way that would address the concern which I'm raising. To do so would<br>
at the very least require a change of focus.<br>
<br><br>Please initiate an entirely new draft text that in your mind reflects this. My personal thoughts though is that the focus should be on Huan Qi and not geo political focus. If we wish to draft a statement about something else, there is nothing stopping anyone from initiating a draft text.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Would you be in agreement with a statement which is not focused on<br>
Huang Qi's sentencing, but which uses the occasion of his sentencing<br>
to highlight the larger problem of states (including not only China,<br>
but also including the US) persecuting whistleblowers whose leaking of<br>
state secrets was motivated by a desire to expose and/or mitigate human<br>
rights violations?<br>
<br>Personally, I am concerned about Huan Qi's wellbeing as he has kidney problems, tumours that demand medical attention and less on the China US. If we opened up the geopolitical discussion if the community wishes, then it is far more broader, consider Assange, Snowden recent journalist from Venezuela whose detention was freed from the quick global activism that took place on twitter etc and calls for the Human Rights Commissioners to intervene. I don't see why we cannot do the same for Huan Qi. As a member of the IGC, I am all for discussion, dialogue and debate. If we start the geopolitical Discussion, you have China, and Hong Kong, Japan-Korea, US, Belgium, France etc and it distracts and takes away from Huan Qi. So my question is, whether the geopolitical needs to be factored in, if we are focusing on Huang Qi. On a completely different tangent, if we were to expand the focus to include the geopolitical aspects, how can we do it without taking away the spotlight from Huan Qi. Again please feel free to suggest and draft whole new texts.<br></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Greetings,<br>
Norbert<br>
<br>
<br>
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 20:53:15 +0100<br>
"\"Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro\"" (via governance Mailing List)<br>
<<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Most countries globally, China, US etc have varying degrees of human<br>
> rights violations all across the world. Western/Eastern Europe, South<br>
> America, Africa, Oceania are not exempt from this.<br>
> <br>
> We are in agreement to have different text and not to associate with<br>
> any government, this is not an anti China position. Those who know me<br>
> personally will know I love the Chinese and China as I love all other<br>
> nations.<br>
> <br>
> The focus here is Huang Qi, a digital activist who has been<br>
> imprisoned and historically in former imprisonment, he has been<br>
> denied medical treatment. If you look at the current revised text,<br>
> there are references for his current situation.<br>
> <br>
> So I would encourage everyone to suggest draft text. To make things<br>
> easier as opposed to scrolling through the thread, Imran has put the<br>
> current revised draft in the etherpad.<br>
> <br>
> Again, this is merely a draft and there is no current call for<br>
> consensus. That would happen once we are all relatively ok with the<br>
> draft. For now, I would encourage us to move swiftly and encourage<br>
> and suggest draft text.<br>
> <br>
> The other purpose in initiating this is to demonstrate to newer<br>
> subscribers that there is a process in which people initiate drafting<br>
> of statements before the IGC releases this to any forum. Even if the<br>
> statement never reaches consensus, then at least we would have<br>
> demonstrated the process.<br>
> <br>
> Going to fly to Heathrow from Los Angeles in several hours.<br>
> <br>
> Sala<br>
> <br>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, 8:46 pm Norbert Bollow, <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nb@bollow.ch</a>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> > I'm strongly in agreement with Ian where he has written: "It is<br>
> > totally inappropriate to use a US Government text, and then later<br>
> > suggest most of it be adopted as final copy, for a civil society<br>
> > statement."<br>
> ><br>
> > And in fact I think that if there is going to be an IGC statement<br>
> > right now, we must take another step back and not just redraft the<br>
> > statement, but consider what we want to achieve (which could be<br>
> > more than one goal, and it doesn't need to be the same goal for<br>
> > everyone, as long as those goals are broadly ok among IGC members),<br>
> > and then figure out how those goals can be credibly advanced. And<br>
> > only then start drafting one or more statements.<br>
> ><br>
> > Although the originally proposed statement expressed sentiments<br>
> > that in themselves I would have been quite willing to endorse, now<br>
> > we are at a point where any statement which we may issue is (both<br>
> > in actual fact and in the perception of anyone who gets informed<br>
> > about what has taken place on this publicly-archived mailing list)<br>
> > not only a reaction to China's deplorable action, but also a<br>
> > reaction to a US government statement. A US government statement<br>
> > which I would consider quite hypocritical in view of the US<br>
> > government's attempts to persecute whistleblowers who have revealed<br>
> > human rights violations committed by the US. Even the excuse used<br>
> > by the Chinese government ("leaking state secrets") is eerily<br>
> > similar to what Chelsea Manning (who lost her pension rights and<br>
> > was sentenced to 35 years in prison, then released early —on the<br>
> > basis of a presidential pardon— after a little under seven years of<br>
> > imprisonment), Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have been accused<br>
> > of by the US.<br>
> ><br>
> > The US government statement is not truly about insisting that the<br>
> > human right to free speech must be safeguarded for whistleblowers<br>
> > who publicly expose human rights violations. If that were now truly<br>
> > a US government view, then they would also publicly change their<br>
> > stance in relation to whistleblowers who expose human rights<br>
> > violations committed by the US.<br>
> ><br>
> > No, that US government statement is part of something else: A<br>
> > process of geopolitical struggle for soft power, which is part of a<br>
> > global geopolitical and economic power struggle that has been going<br>
> > on for a long time.<br>
> ><br>
> > Whether we like it or not, if we were to now issue a statement which<br>
> > criticizes China without also criticizing the US, then we would<br>
> > thereby not only take a side in that geopolitical struggle. We would<br>
> > do so in a way through which we would become complicit in the US<br>
> > government's hypocrisy.<br>
> ><br>
> > Greetings,<br>
> > Norbert<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > On Sun, 04 Aug 2019 05:44:31 +0000<br>
> > "<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> > <br>
> > > To be absolutely precise, Sala.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I want to replace everything. It is totally inappropriate to use<br>
> > > a US Government text, and then later suggest most of it be<br>
> > > adopted as final copy, for a civil society statement.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > If someone wants to come up with a fresh statement that it not<br>
> > > plagiarising US government statements, I will be happy to look and<br>
> > > comment. But as regards this process and discussion, I am sorry,<br>
> > > but I cannot support this as a basis for a civil society<br>
> > > statement.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Ian<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > ------ Original Message ------<br>
> > > From: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"<br>
> > > <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> To: "Ian Peter"<br>
> > > <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> Cc: "farzaneh badii"<br>
> > > <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>; "David Allen"<br>
> > > <<a href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</a>>; "Marie Georges"<br>
> > > <<a href="mailto:ma.georges@orange.fr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ma.georges@orange.fr</a>>; "Norbert Bollow" <<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nb@bollow.ch</a>>;<br>
> > > "governance" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> Sent: 4/08/2019<br>
> > > 3:24:18 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC on Huan<br>
> > > Qi's sentencing <br>
> > > >Your suggested draft text was incorporated into the text and if<br>
> > > >you are still after further revisions, be precise in what<br>
> > > >specifically you want to replace.<br>
> > > ><br>
> > > >On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, 5:05 am <a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>,<br>
> > > ><<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>> wrote: <br>
> > > >>Oh I am glad you noticed that Farzaneh - our credibility for<br>
> > > >>having independent inputs is ruined if we either deliberately or<br>
> > > >>accidentally adopt such statements which fully mimic any<br>
> > > >>government.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>Here is the wording of the US statement - more than just the<br>
> > > >>opening paragraph, whole sections of our proposed wording are<br>
> > > >>identical. WTF.....<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>"The United States is deeply concerned by the sentencing of<br>
> > > >>online activist Huang Qi to 12 years in prison. Huang has been<br>
> > > >>honored multiple times by Reporters Without Borders for his<br>
> > > >>courage in exposing corruption and human rights violations in<br>
> > > >>China through his website, 64 Tianwang.<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>The imprisonment of Huang Qi underscores China’s continued<br>
> > > >>repression of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including<br>
> > > >>free speech. We urge the Chinese government to uphold its<br>
> > > >>international commitments related to fair trial guarantees and<br>
> > > >>the rule of law. We call on China to immediately release Mr.<br>
> > > >>Huang, and to allow him access to his family, medical care, and<br>
> > > >>legal counsel as soon as possible. We also call on China to end<br>
> > > >>undue restrictions on the freedom of movement of his family and<br>
> > > >>those who assisted him."<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>So I oppose repitition of any of these sentences or phrases. We<br>
> > > >>can echo the sentiments if we are in agreement with them, but<br>
> > > >>our statement must be our statement, not a copy of that of any<br>
> > > >>government..<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>Ian Peter<br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >><br>
> > > >>------ Original Message ------<br>
> > > >>From: "farzaneh badii" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
> > > >>To: <a href="mailto:salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com</a><br>
> > > >>Cc: "David Allen" <<a href="mailto:david_allen_ab63@post.harvard.edu" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">david_allen_ab63@post.harvard.edu</a>>; "Marie<br>
> > > >>Georges" <<a href="mailto:ma.georges@orange.fr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ma.georges@orange.fr</a>>; "Norbert Bollow"<br>
> > > >><<a href="mailto:nb@bollow.ch" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nb@bollow.ch</a>>; "governance" <<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>>;<br>
> > > >>"<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>" <<a href="mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">ian.peter@ianpeter.com</a>><br>
> > > >>Sent: 4/08/2019 12:14:43 PM<br>
> > > >>Subject: Re: [governance] Statement by IGC on Huan Qi's<br>
> > > >>sentencing<br>
> > > >> <br>
> > > >>>The first paragraph is almost a copy paste of the US<br>
> > > >>>statement. We can't just work on a "draft" that someone else<br>
> > > >>>has issued already. This needs to be redrafted from scratch<br>
> > > >>>should we want to issue a statement.<br>
> > > >>><br>
> > > >>>On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 9:33 PM "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro"<br>
> > > >>><<a href="mailto:governance@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">governance@lists.riseup.net</a>> wrote: <br>
> > > >>>>Dear All,<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>This revised draft captures some of Chaitanya and Ian's input<br>
> > > >>>>and suggested edits. Please review and comment.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>Revised Draft 4th August, 2019<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>Proposed Draft<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is deeply<br>
> > > >>>>concerned by the sentencing of online activist Huang Qi to 12<br>
> > > >>>>years in prison. Huang has been honoured multiple times by<br>
> > > >>>>Reporters Without Borders for his courage in exposing<br>
> > > >>>>corruption and human rights violations in China through his<br>
> > > >>>>website, 64 Tianwang.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>> Huang Qi has greatly strengthened China as a country by<br>
> > > >>>> bringing to<br>
> > > >>>>the foreground these good governance issues including but not<br>
> > > >>>>limited to corruption & human rights. It is our view that<br>
> > > >>>>Huang Qi should be honoured as a strong contributor to<br>
> > > >>>>society.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>We urge the Chinese government to uphold its international<br>
> > > >>>>commitments related to fair trial guarantees and the rule of<br>
> > > >>>>law. We call on China to immediately release Mr. Huang, and to<br>
> > > >>>>allow him access to his family, medical care, and legal<br>
> > > >>>>counsel as soon as possible. We also call on China to end<br>
> > > >>>>undue restrictions on the freedom of movement of his family<br>
> > > >>>>and those who assisted him.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>We note that China is a member of the United Nations Human<br>
> > > >>>>Rights Council this year. The Civil Society Internet<br>
> > > >>>>Governance Caucus calls on China to aspire to subscribe to<br>
> > > >>>>the Charter of the Internet Rights and Principles which was<br>
> > > >>>>developed by the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and<br>
> > > >>>>Principles within the Internet Governance Forum and is<br>
> > > >>>>available on the OHCHR website.<br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>><br>
> > > >>>>---<br>
> > > >>>>To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
> > > >>>>List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>> <br>
> > > >>>--<br>
> > > >>>Farzaneh <br>
> ><br>
> > ---<br>
> > To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
> > List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>><br>
> > <br>
<br>
---<br>
To unsubscribe: <mailto:<a href="mailto:igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">igc-unsubscribe@lists.riseup.net</a>><br>
List help: <<a href="https://riseup.net/lists" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://riseup.net/lists</a>><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>