From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Apr  2 21:29:20 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:29:20 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits logo poll - round 1
Message-ID: <E86A4351-A066-4E91-AF5F-502E217B6CE4@ciroap.org>

Hello all,

In preparation for the relaunch of our website and calendar (soon!), I am commissioning the design of a Best Bits logo.  I have put together a poll with the first three options.  They are all similar, but this is deliberate so that we can choose the best of them to go into a second round of voting later.

If you like the design but don't like the colours that's fine, they can be changed.  You could mention that in the comments, if you like.  Be sure to click on the designs to see them in a larger format.

Here is the poll:

http://www.designcrowd.com/vote/best-bits-logo-poll-round-1

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130403/db3203b7/attachment.htm>

From Lea at global-partners.co.uk  Fri Apr 12 06:35:26 2013
From: Lea at global-partners.co.uk (Lea Kaspar)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:35:26 +0100
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <005501ce36e9$52466cb0$f6d34610$@gmail.com>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com>
	<CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com>
 <CALU7RQYgcp0Zqzh2sz8BBUO0_UU=opyuGK3koyKPdn0vnNOc4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <005501ce36e9$52466cb0$f6d34610$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9BFC452@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>

Dear Deborah,

Thank you for your thorough and useful analysis!

I am planning to attend the WTPF on behalf of Global Partners, and am likely to be sitting on the UK delegation. We also hope to facilitate participation of a few groups from the South, but this is provided funding comes through. We're expecting to find out in the following week or two.

Best,
Lea

From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
Sent: 11 April 2013 20:18
To: 'Deborah Brown'
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: RE: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

Thanks very much Deborah, that helps a lot.

Best,

M

From: Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org]<mailto:[mailto:deborah at accessnow.org]>
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:09 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: Re: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email. See my responses below.

Best,
Deborah

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<mailto:gurstein at gmail.com>> wrote:
Thanks Deborah,

A couple of things... It would help a lot if you were to provide links to the "Secretary General's report and draft opinions" to which you are referring.

The Secretary General's report and draft opinions are hyperlinked in the introductory paragraph, but in case the links didn't come through here they are:

Secretary General's report: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en
All draft opinions: http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/opinions.aspx

*         Opinion 1- Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term solution to advance connectivity: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0047/en
*         Opinion 2- Fostering an enabling environment for the greater growth and development of broadband connectivity: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0043/en
*         Opinion 3- Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment of IPv6: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0046/en
*         Opinion 4- In support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from IPv4: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0045/en
*         Opinion 5- Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0042/en
*         Opinion 6- On supporting operationalizing the Enhanced Cooperation Process: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0044/en
Also, in the draft document it is not clear to me at least how your document flows i.e. what is your opinion/analysis and what is the nature of the materials/on which documents is your opinion is being based.

The document introduces an issue, then pulls text from the SG's report as examples of the issues. The numbers preceding the quoted text indicate the section of the SG's report it is pulled from. Does that make sense? Apologies if that was not clear before.

Please remember that this is only a part-time and voluntary activity for many of us.

Tks,

Mike


From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org> [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org>] On Behalf Of Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:38 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org<mailto:bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>>
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

Hi all,

As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics at WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying some of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report and draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from CDT on another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:

 *   Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;
 *   The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its mission;
 *   The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;
 *   The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about ICT regulation and policy;
 *   Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users around the world, particularly in developing countries;
 *   The appropriate level of transparency and civil society participation in WTPF and other ITU activities.
We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you like to see as an outcome?

We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the various options for civil society and individual participation (see attached). Please note that the deadline to apply<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx> to attend the WTPF as "public attendant" 12 April.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best,
Deborah

-
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D



--
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org<mailto:deborah at accessnow.org>
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130412/2401d50f/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Fri Apr 12 08:42:29 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 08:42:29 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9BFC452@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com>
	<CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com>
	<CALU7RQYgcp0Zqzh2sz8BBUO0_UU=opyuGK3koyKPdn0vnNOc4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<005501ce36e9$52466cb0$f6d34610$@gmail.com>
	<F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399C69E9BFC452@COLO-MB-CLUSTER.ethical.local>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYp1i9iLYLnBra12zEQXz8yc2nq1cW=MY_zjeEMR0vdoA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Lea,

Great to hear that you'll be in Geneva and hopefully supporting the
participation of others. I plan to attend for Access and will remain
unaffiliated, in the category of former IEG members. I wonder if we should
aim to set up a call, both for those going and those, interested in the
next week or so.

Just to clarify, we worked on this document together with Emma, Emily, and
Matthew from CDT.

Best,
Deborah


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Lea Kaspar <Lea at global-partners.co.uk>wrote:

> Dear Deborah,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for your thorough and useful analysis! ****
>
> ** **
>
> I am planning to attend the WTPF on behalf of Global Partners, and am
> likely to be sitting on the UK delegation. We also hope to facilitate
> participation of a few groups from the South, but this is provided funding
> comes through. We’re expecting to find out in the following week or two.**
> **
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Lea****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *michael gurstein
> *Sent:* 11 April 2013 20:18
> *To:* 'Deborah Brown'
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* RE: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks very much Deborah, that helps a lot.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> ** **
>
> M****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:09 PM
> *To:* michael gurstein
> *Cc:* bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi Michael, ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thank you for your email. See my responses below.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best, ****
>
> Deborah ****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Thanks Deborah,****
>
>  ****
>
> A couple of things… It would help a lot if you were to provide links to
> the "Secretary General's report and draft opinions" to which you are
> referring.****
>
>  ****
>
> The Secretary General's report and draft opinions are hyperlinked in the
> introductory paragraph, but in case the links didn't come through here they
> are:****
>
> ** **
>
> Secretary General's report: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en****
>
> All draft opinions: http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/opinions.aspx****
>
> ** **
>
> **·         **Opinion 1- Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a
> long term solution to advance connectivity:
> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0047/en****
>
> **·         **Opinion 2- Fostering an enabling environment for the
> greater growth and development of broadband connectivity:
> http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0043/en****
>
> **·         **Opinion 3- Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment
> of IPv6: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0046/en****
>
> **·         **Opinion 4- In support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from
> IPv4: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0045/en ****
>
> **·         **Opinion 5- Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet
> Governance: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0042/en ****
>
> **·         **Opinion 6- On supporting operationalizing the Enhanced
> Cooperation Process: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0044/en ****
>
> Also, in the draft document it is not clear to me at least how your
> document flows i.e. what is your opinion/analysis and what is the nature of
> the materials/on which documents is your opinion is being based.****
>
> ** **
>
> The document introduces an issue, then pulls text from the SG's report as
> examples of the issues. The numbers preceding the quoted text indicate the
> section of the SG's report it is pulled from. Does that make sense?
> Apologies if that was not clear before.****
>
>  ****
>
> Please remember that this is only a part-time and voluntary activity for
> many of us.****
>
>  ****
>
> Tks,****
>
>  ****
>
> Mike****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:38 AM
> *To:* <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch****
>
>  ****
>
> Hi all,****
>
>  ****
>
> As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is
> coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics
> at WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying
> some of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report
> and draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from
> CDT on another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:****
>
>    - Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;****
>    - The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its
>    mission;****
>    - The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;****
>    - The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about
>    ICT regulation and policy;****
>    - Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users
>    around the world, particularly in developing countries;****
>    - The appropriate level of transparency and civil society
>    participation in WTPF and other ITU activities.****
>
> We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these
> topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What
> are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you
> like to see as an outcome? ****
>
>  ****
>
> We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're
> planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the
> various options for civil society and individual participation (see
> attached). Please note that the deadline to apply<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx> to
> attend the WTPF as "public attendant" *12 April.*****
>
>  ****
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts!****
>
>  ****
>
> Best, ****
>
> Deborah ****
>
>  ****
>
> -****
>
> Deborah Brown****
>
> Policy Analyst****
>
> Access | AccessNow.org****
>
> E. deborah at accessnow.org****
>
> @deblebrown****
>
> PGP 0x5EB4727D****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> Deborah Brown****
>
> Policy Analyst****
>
> Access | AccessNow.org****
>
> E. deborah at accessnow.org****
>
> @deblebrown****
>
> PGP 0x5EB4727D****
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130412/2cb233a9/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Sat Apr 13 15:54:43 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 12:54:43 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from
 OTI and CDT
References: <86C24DC3-3A18-4486-969B-119BC55284C1@gmail.com> <E73DFBB5-A49D-4865-8CC7-34AB7E218A6E@gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>

(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked me to
forward this.)

FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from which
broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG areas can
be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps even
help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
unproductive stalemate.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT

Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CDT-OTI letter re House bill on Internet governance.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 153062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130413/c62579d5/attachment.pdf>

From avri at acm.org  Sat Apr 13 19:30:48 2013
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 19:30:48 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce
 Committee from OTI and CDT
In-Reply-To: <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>
References: <86C24DC3-3A18-4486-969B-119BC55284C1@gmail.com> <E73DFBB5-A49D-4865-8CC7-34AB7E218A6E@gmail.com> <092e01ce3880$c4d9cae0$4e8d60a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <fb5fc8df-cb20-4ccf-9854-0d0ebac50752@email.android.com>

Hi,

As I said in a previous email, I think the interpretation some people are giving this bill is mistaken.
And I think any messages should support the primary position, even if there are things we wish to comment critically (after thought and discussion) on.
Of course I am speaking only in relation to IGC and Bestbits, CDT and OTI are none of my concern.

But whatever the case, the conversation on IGC has been going on for all of a day. 
In what way does this qualify as unproductive and stalemated?

I know a few people say "US Bill bad," 
and one says, "not so fast"? 

I thought we were just starting to get into a possibly useful discussion of the role of government in Internet governance. For example just last Thursday the GAC put out a intergovernmental communique that opened up a whole discussion on government wanting ICANN to get into the content regulation business. Does this civil society group think that is an appropriate thing? If the governments were in charge instead of just one stakeholder, that would now be the rule as opposed to a discussion item.

We should really not rush to turn the Internet over to the same organizational structures, governments, that have persisted in making such a mess of the rest of the world. A multi stakeholder model that builds participatory democracy on top of representative democracy and other forms of participation is an advance in democracy, not a loss.

GAC - government advisory committee of ICANN
https://gacweb.icann.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/27132037


michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

>(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked
>me to
>forward this.)
>
>FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from
>which
>broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG
>areas can
>be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps
>even
>help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
>unproductive stalemate.
>
>M
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
>Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
>To: gurstein at gmail.com
>Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT
>
>Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130413/24d097fd/attachment.htm>

From avri at ella.com  Sat Apr 13 17:07:40 2013
From: avri at ella.com (=?utf-8?B?QXZyaSBEb3JpYQ==?=)
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2013 17:07:40 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] Re: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce
 Committee from OTI and CDT
Message-ID: <201304132107.r3DL7fgp021675@atl4mhob14.myregisteredsite.com>

I certainly neither  support  this letter nor its interpretation of the bill. 


avri

----- Reply message -----
From: "michael gurstein" <gurstein at gmail.com>
To: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>, <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
Cc: "Gene Kimmelman" <genekimmelman at gmail.com>
Subject: [governance] FW: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT
Date: Sat, Apr 13, 2013 15:54


(Gene and I have been going back and forth on this a bit and he asked me to
forward this.)

FWIW I think the attached letter presents a very useful platform from which
broader based collaborations and international campaigns in the IG areas can
be developed through the BestBits discussions among others, and perhaps even
help to move the discussion forward on the IGC list beyond the current
unproductive stalemate.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: Gene Kimmelman [mailto:genekimmelman at gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:08 PM
To: gurstein at gmail.com
Subject: Letter to House Energy and Commerce Committee from OTI and CDT

Would you mind posting for me? I'm on mobile device now

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130413/3fc230e0/attachment.htm>

From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 14 05:26:52 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:56:52 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy
 of the United States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516A695B.1010404@itforchange.net>
References: <516A695B.1010404@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <516A765C.8030604@itforchange.net>




On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
> relevant points about the language.
> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
> enforcement and
> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
> formulated by governments
> with input from civil society, business and the technical community. 
> For example, the
> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
> through Child Online
> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
> opposed the ITU
> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
> protects its citizens from
> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 
> Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
> numerous other
> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
> protecting consumers and
> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as 
> simply a resolution
> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
> of the ITU, these
> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
> Our opposition to
> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
> protection and free
> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
> consumers or
> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
> decided here at home,
> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
> constrained by
> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
> or law
> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
> Congress or other
> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
> Constitutional limitations of due
> process and free expression.”


Public Knowledge's draft letter is most instructive of what has really 
been happening in the global IG space. How the term 'government control' 
has been deviously used to further entrench hegemonies, and a neoliberal 
paradigm. A paradigm of complete non regulation of the emerging 
'communication realm, put forward more appealingly as 'an Internet free 
from governmental control', was the name of the game at WCIT. Here the 
front of 'protecting Internet freedoms' was employed to cover the real 
geo-economic intentions of using the Internet as the new pillar of 
global domination by US and its allies. We raised this issue through an 
oped in a top Indian daily ' Hyping one threat to hide another 
<http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/hyping-one-threat-to-hide-another/article4140922.ece>'. 


The chickens have now come home to roost, as we had predicted in the 
mentioned op-ed. Excuse me to quote it, I simply cant resist the 
temptation .

    "What is happening at the ITU today, in good measure, is this game
    of freeing our communication realm from all public interest
    regulation. As mentioned, it is about a new paradigm of ‘complete
    non-regulation.’ And once the victory is achieved at the ITU,
    whereby the Internet and other IP networks, which would soon be the
    basis of all communication infrastructure, are considered out of any
    kind of regulatory oversight, the game will then be replayed at the
    national level, citing ‘global norms.’ "

US civil society was most active seeking that Internet - and with it, 
really, all future communication systems - should 'completely' stay out 
of ITU's realm. (Just opposing China/ Russia proposals of 'national 
Internet segement' and national control of CIRs etc is a completely 
different matter. What was opposed was even references to Internet 
related universal service obligations, net neutrlaity and such things.) 
What was even more problematic was that civil society from most 
developing countries also joined the (apparently well- resourced) 
chorus. And now when this game of de-regulation of communicative realm 
plays out in our respective national domains, do give a thought to 
whether the manner in which the WCIT game got played was the right thing 
to do for progressive causes... There is yet opportunity to re-look at 
what is being done to our futures, especially those of the marginalised 
people, in the name of 'Internet freedoms' and multistakeholderism.

parminder


> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and 
> similar reasons.
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
> flawed.
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
> latter simply states:
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global 
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of 
> other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to 
> "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, 
> which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions 
> that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the 
> breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and 
> other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
> year...
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130414/b9e4df2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 14 05:28:39 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 14:58:39 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy
 of the United States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net>
References: <516A6FA6.6070802@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <516A76C7.6@itforchange.net>



On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
> relevant points about the language.
> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
> enforcement and
> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
> formulated by governments
> with input from civil society, business and the technical community.

The 'Public Knowledge' statement is also very clear on respective roles 
of different groups or stakeholders vis a vis the public policy role of 
governments. This is the single most contentious issue in global IG 
today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders are equal in 
public policy making processes' kind of dangerous anti-democracy 
statements, that this elist/group (meaning Internet Gov Caucus where the 
message was first posted) also seem to be rife with. 'Public Knowledge' 
takes a clear and strong position against such a formulation. IT for 
Change has since long warned that playing with democratic principles at 
the global level can have extremely dangerous consequences for national 
and local level democracy practices and principles.

what are basic democratic principles for local and national levels 
remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts as well 
possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked 
with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which are 
repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based 
multilateral systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national 
systems in different ways). But then the processes at multilateral 
levels are also different - for instance need for consensus for most 
processes, and the fact that almost always anything agreed to 
internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and that there are 
almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of 
multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely 
usurps, but that is a different matter). Still, the democratic practices 
at global levels should be further improved - with all kinds of new 
participative, transparency, accountability etc methods..... Which 
however is very different from using the pretext of 'democracy deficit' 
to institutionalise practices and institutions that are 'in principle' 
anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should have a similar 
voting power as a government in international policy making settings.

parminder


> For example, the
> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
> through Child Online
> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
> opposed the ITU
> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
> protects its citizens from
> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 
> Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
> numerous other
> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
> protecting consumers and
> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as 
> simply a resolution
> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
> of the ITU, these
> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
> Our opposition to
> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
> protection and free
> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
> consumers or
> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
> decided here at home,
> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
> constrained by
> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
> or law
> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
> Congress or other
> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
> Constitutional limitations of due
> process and free expression.”
> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and 
> similar reasons.
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
> flawed.
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
> latter simply states:
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global 
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of 
> other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to 
> "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, 
> which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions 
> that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the 
> breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and 
> other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
> year...
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130414/7d95c5a8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Sun Apr 14 07:31:29 2013
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:01:29 +0530
Subject: [bestbits] Fwd: Fwd: Re: [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the
 Policy of the United States Regarding Internet Governance
In-Reply-To: <516A76C7.6@itforchange.net>
References: <516A76C7.6@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <516A9391.4090807@itforchange.net>





On Saturday 13 April 2013 09:05 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> yes, the concept of no government involvement is nonsense. The Public 
> Knowledge response (or draft response, it may have changed) included 
> the following. Not that I entirely agree with it, but it makes some 
> relevant points about the language.
> “ we fear that the broad language of the proposed bill may
> intrude on areas of consumer protection, competition policy, law 
> enforcement and
> cybersecurity long considered appropriate for national policy 
> formulated by governments
> with input from civil society, business and the technical community.

The 'Public Knowledge' statement is also very clear on respective roles 
of different groups or stakeholders vis a vis the public policy role of 
governments. This is the single most contentious issue in global IG 
today..... A good rejoinder to all those 'all stakeholders are equal in 
public policy making processes' kind of dangerous anti-democracy 
statements, that this elist/group (meaning Internet Gov Caucus where the 
message was first posted)  also seem to be rife with. 'Public Knowledge' 
takes a clear and strong position against such a formulation. IT for 
Change has since long warned that playing with democratic principles at 
the global level can have extremely dangerous consequences for national 
and local level democracy practices and principles.

what are basic democratic principles for local and national levels 
remain unchanged for global levels. We all know that facts as well 
possibilities at each level are different, and these have to be worked 
with, however, without breaching larger democratic principles (which are 
repeated sought to be breached in the name of MSism).... UN based 
multilateral systems are far from perfect (but so are are our national 
systems in different ways). But then the processes at multilateral 
levels are also different - for instance need for consensus for most 
processes, and the fact that almost always anything agreed to 
internationally becomes effective only when ratified, and that there are 
almost zero coercive implementation mechanisms in the hands of 
multilateral systems (expect for some of the kind which US routinely 
usurps, but that is a different matter). Still, the democratic practices 
at global levels should be further improved - with all kinds of new 
participative, transparency, accountability etc methods..... Which 
however is very different from using the pretext of 'democracy deficit' 
to institutionalise practices and institutions that are 'in principle' 
anit-democratic, like seeking that a corporation should have a similar 
voting power as a government in international policy making settings.

parminder


> For example, the
> United States has by law protected the privacy of children online 
> through Child Online
> Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) for nearly 15 years. Although we 
> opposed the ITU
> resolution to require countries to limit spam, the United States 
> protects its citizens from
> spam through the CAN-SPAM Act. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the 
> Federal
> Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Justice and 
> numerous other
> federal and state agencies have long played a critical role in 
> protecting consumers and
> promoting competition and their existing statutes.
> We fear that if this bill becomes law, rather than being understood as 
> simply a resolution
> directed specifically against the efforts to expand the jurisdiction 
> of the ITU, these
> important and long-standing government policies will be undermined. 
> Our opposition to
> ceding authority to the ITU to decide how to balance consumer 
> protection and free
> expression is not because we see no role for government in protecting 
> consumers or
> promoting competition. Rather, we believe those matters are best 
> decided here at home,
> by a Congress accountable to the people and enforced by a government 
> constrained by
> the Constitution. Similarly, many who oppose addressing cybersecurity 
> or law
> enforcement issues at the ITU regard it as entirely appropriate for 
> Congress or other
> federal agencies to address these concerns, subject to the 
> Constitutional limitations of due
> process and free expression.”
> Certainly a number of US groups have opposed the language for this and 
> similar reasons.
> *From:* Jeremy Malcolm <mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Sent:* Saturday, April 13, 2013 12:56 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org 
> <mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [governance] US House Bill to Affirm the Policy of the 
> United States Regarding Internet Governance
> It doesn't seem to have been mentioned here yet (or maybe only in 
> passing) that there is a bill on Internet governance being debated in 
> the Energy & Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives at 
> the moment.  There will doubtless be stampede of uncritical support 
> for it from politicians of all sides (there is no hidden intellectual 
> property "gotcha"), but unfortunately its premises are fundamentally 
> flawed.
> http://energycommerce.house.gov/markup/markup-bill-affirm-policy-united-states-regarding-internet-governance
> It only has two sections: one on "Findings" and one on "Policy 
> regarding Internet governance", which flows from the findings.  The 
> latter simply states:
> "It is the policy of the United States to promote a global Internet 
> free from government control and to preserve and advance the 
> successful multistakeholder model that governs the Internet."
> So this is obviously nonsense; it is not US policy to promote a global 
> Internet free from government control, only free from the control of 
> other governments besides itself.  And note that US policy is only to 
> "preserve and advance" not to "enhance" the multistakeholder model, 
> which continues the fiction that the multistakeholder institutions 
> that we have now are adequate both in their inclusiveness and in the 
> breadth of Internet governance topics that they cover.
> Of course, you can argue for more beneficial interpretations by 
> defining "control" and "multistakeholder model" expansively, but even 
> so this bill is just going to entrench the standoff between the US and 
> other countries, which is not going to be helpful in reaching 
> compromise on the evolution of Internet governance arrangements this 
> year...
> -- 
>
> *Dr Jeremy Malcolm
> Senior Policy Officer
> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, 
> Malaysia
> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599
>
> WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: 
> https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013
>
> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/> | 
> www.facebook.com/consumersinternational 
> <http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't 
> print this email unless necessary.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130414/0c7c2022/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From jeremy at ciroap.org  Wed Apr 24 03:12:48 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:12:48 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Draft workshop proposal for the APrIGF
Message-ID: <517785F0.1040307@ciroap.org>

As you all know, work on Best Bits is going on behind the scenes
including the new website, calendar, fundraising and the two IGF
workshops that will follow on from our main Best Bits meeting in Bali in
October.  For the first workshop on enhanced cooperation, we propose
inviting the members of the CSTD Working Group to lead discussions. 
Andrew will be writing more about that soon.

Meanwhile as I mentioned earlier on the ec at lists.bestbits.net list
<http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/ec>, in the leadup to Bali we also
have the opportunity for a workshop at the Asia-Pacific Regional IGF
<http://aprigf.asia/> (APrIGF) in Korea.  Here is my proposed text for
that workshop, which is open for your comment.  In line with the purpose
of the regional IGFs, it intended to feed in to the later global IGF
workshops, so the content is basically similar to those:

    *Title:* Internet governance for human rights and democracy
    *Thematic area of interest:* Enhanced cooperation, Internet
    principles and multi-stakeholder Internet governance
    *Description:* The Internet is governed through a patchwork of
    rules, norms and standards, which its stakeholders have developed
    largely independently and without reference to an overarching
    framework of principles.  This has allowed the Internet to flourish
    through the adaptive and innovative development of new services,
    particularly in the technical sphere.  But the absence of guiding
    principles has also allowed powerful stakeholders to drive changes
    to Internet governance that conflict with human rights and other
    emerging global norms of Internet user communities, though
    undemocratic processes such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership
    Agreement, member-only discussions at the International
    Telecommunications Union (ITU), and North-heavy regional groupings
    such as the G8 and OECD.  Is this status quo sustainable?  Would it
    help to democratise global Internet governance if all stakeholders
    had a better way of developing guiding principles for policy makers
    in areas that are not already covered by multi-stakeholder
    democratic processes?  How will the discussions at the CSTD Working
    Group on Enhanced Cooperation be able to address this?  What
    progress (if any) was made at the ITU's World
    Telecommunication/Information and Communication Technology Policy
    Forum (WTPF)?  What principles initiatives already exist, and what
    role could the IGF play in legitimising these at the global level? 
    What other mechanisms are available to advocate for the Internet we
    want, that is globally democratic and respects human rights?  This
    workshop will attempt to address these questions, including through
    the presentation of concrete proposals for practical reforms.
    *Expected format:* A roundtable discussion that will feed into the
    two-day Best Bits civil society meeting in Bali in October, and into
    two subsequent multi-stakeholder  workshops at the global IGF.
    *Target panel members:** Parminder Jeet Singh (IT for Change), Ian
    Peter (consultant), Anja Kovacs (Internet Democracy Project), David
    Allen (Harvard University), Michael Gurstein (Centre for Community
    Informatics), Iarla Flynn (Google), Keith Davidson (Internet NZ)
    *Workshop organiser:* Best Bits


* The panelists list is not really satisfactory because of the lack of
gender balance.  Suggestions for improving that appreciated... note the
Best Bits members are those who volunteered already, mostly subject to
funding; likely not all of them will end up coming.

PS. Separately, Deborah from Access will be writing here soon about a
possible Best Bits statement to the WTPF, which I think is a great idea.

For those who haven't seen it already, I think today's blog from Milton
Mueller, "WTF? WTPF! The continuing battle over Internet governance
principles" at
http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/04/23/wtf-wtpf-the-continuing-battle-over-internet-governance-principles/
does a nice job of linking the WTPF to the failure of the IGF to live up
to its potential.

The proposal with which I kicked of discussion on the
ec at lists.bestbits.net list, and which is also online at the top of
http://igfwatch.org/, was about turning that around, by developing a
mandate for further reform of the IGF in the CSTD enhanced cooperation
discussions.  We had some comments on the ec list, but more are welcome
here.  The ec working group will be reporting back here also once
discussions are further advanced.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130424/4c49812f/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Apr  4 02:50:44 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 14:50:44 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits logo poll - round 2
Message-ID: <515D22C4.4080500@ciroap.org>

Thanks to the 24 people who voted in round 1 of our Best Bits logo poll!

Here is round 2:

http://www.designcrowd.com/vote/round-2-of-voting-on-best-bits-logo

This round pits the logo that won the previous round against four new
logos. If you voted for the logo that won the previous round before, and
you still think it is the best, you should vote for it again.

Note that some suggestions were made for improvement of the logo that
won the previous round, and these have not yet been put in place. But
never fear, we will have another round of variations on whichever logo
wins this round.

Thanks!

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130404/074fcba9/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Apr  4 05:56:53 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2013 17:56:53 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] Best Bits logo poll - round 2
In-Reply-To: <515D22C4.4080500@ciroap.org>
References: <515D22C4.4080500@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <515D4E65.7000302@ciroap.org>

On 04/04/13 14:50, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> Thanks to the 24 people who voted in round 1 of our Best Bits logo poll!

A small correction: there were 24 votes cast, but these were distributed
between the three logos in the poll, and there were only about 9
individual voters.  So I may have opened the second poll too soon.  If
you didn't vote in the first poll and still wish to do so, it remains
open at this address:

http://www.designcrowd.com/vote/best-bits-logo-poll-round-1

Meanwhile the second poll is at this address:

http://www.designcrowd.com/vote/round-2-of-voting-on-best-bits-logo

If the outcome of the first poll changes due to additional votes being
cast, I will include both the option that I originally declared as the
winner, and the new winner, in the third and final poll.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130404/96e34731/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Sun Apr  7 05:54:45 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 17:54:45 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Final_round_of_voting_on_Best_Bits_lo?=
 =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?go=85_and_draft_new_website?=
Message-ID: <CA9A7A23-80A6-41F9-87B9-3DC9E944D456@ciroap.org>

Thanks to those who participated in the second round of voting on the Best Bits logo.  A rough version of the winning logo from the second round (but in a different colour) is now up on our new website which is under construction at http://bestbits.net.

We have one more poll which has variations on the winning logo and the two runners up.  It would be great if you could take a minute to vote in this third and final round:

http://www.designcrowd.com/vote/final-round-of-voting-on-best-bits-logo

Thanks!

-- 
Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 – Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map: https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130407/bd143c80/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Thu Apr 11 13:37:32 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:37:32 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <list-2934675@studio405.com>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is
coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics
at WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying
some of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report
and draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from
CDT on another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:

   - Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;
   - The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its
   mission;
   - The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;
   - The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about ICT
   regulation and policy;
   - Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users around
   the world, particularly in developing countries;
   - The appropriate level of transparency and civil society participation
   in WTPF and other ITU activities.

We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these
topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What
are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you
like to see as an outcome?

We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're
planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the
various options for civil society and individual participation (see
attached). Please note that the deadline to
apply<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx>
to
attend the WTPF as "public attendant" *12 April.*

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best,
Deborah

-
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/bc039ea6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: analysisofWTPFreport.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 249946 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/bc039ea6/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: civilsocietyparticipation.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 199681 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/bc039ea6/attachment-0001.pdf>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Apr 11 14:09:43 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 11:09:43 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com> <CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com>

Thanks Deborah,

 

A couple of things. It would help a lot if you were to provide links to the
"Secretary General's report and draft opinions" to which you are referring.

 

Also, in the draft document it is not clear to me at least how your document
flows i.e. what is your opinion/analysis and what is the nature of the
materials/on which documents is your opinion is being based.

 

Please remember that this is only a part-time and voluntary activity for
many of us.

 

Tks,

 

Mike

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:38 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

 

Hi all,

 

As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is
coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics at
WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying some
of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report and
draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from CDT on
another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:

*	Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;
*	The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its
mission;
*	The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;
*	The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about
ICT regulation and policy;
*	Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users
around the world, particularly in developing countries;
*	The appropriate level of transparency and civil society
participation in WTPF and other ITU activities.

We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these
topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What
are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you
like to see as an outcome? 

 

We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're
planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the various
options for civil society and individual participation (see attached).
Please note that the deadline to apply
<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx>  to
attend the WTPF as "public attendant" 12 April.

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

Best, 

Deborah 

 

-

Deborah Brown

Policy Analyst

Access | AccessNow.org

E.  <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org> deborah at accessnow.org

@deblebrown

PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/e83daae7/attachment.htm>

From deborah at accessnow.org  Thu Apr 11 15:09:09 2013
From: deborah at accessnow.org (Deborah Brown)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 15:09:09 -0400
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com>
	<CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALU7RQYgcp0Zqzh2sz8BBUO0_UU=opyuGK3koyKPdn0vnNOc4Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email. See my responses below.

Best,
Deborah

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>wrote:

> Thanks Deborah,****
>
> ** **
>
> A couple of things… It would help a lot if you were to provide links to
> the "Secretary General's report and draft opinions" to which you are
> referring.****
>
> **
>
The Secretary General's report and draft opinions are hyperlinked in the
introductory paragraph, but in case the links didn't come through here they
are:

Secretary General's report: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en
All draft opinions: http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/opinions.aspx


   - Opinion 1- Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long term
   solution to advance connectivity:
   http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0047/en
   - Opinion 2- Fostering an enabling environment for the greater growth
   and development of broadband connectivity:
   http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0043/en
   - Opinion 3- Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment of IPv6:
   http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0046/en
   - Opinion 4- In support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from IPv4:
   http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0045/en
   - Opinion 5- Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance:
   http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0042/en
   - Opinion 6- On supporting operationalizing the Enhanced Cooperation
   Process: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0044/en

**
>
> Also, in the draft document it is not clear to me at least how your
> document flows i.e. what is your opinion/analysis and what is the nature of
> the materials/on which documents is your opinion is being based.
>

The document introduces an issue, then pulls text from the SG's report as
examples of the issues. The numbers preceding the quoted text indicate the
section of the SG's report it is pulled from. Does that make sense?
Apologies if that was not clear before.

> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Please remember that this is only a part-time and voluntary activity for
> many of us.****
>
> ** **
>
> Tks,****
>
> ** **
>
> Mike****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:
> bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] *On Behalf Of *Deborah Brown
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:38 AM
> *To:* <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
> *Subject:* [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi all,****
>
> ** **
>
> As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is
> coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics
> at WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying
> some of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report
> and draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from
> CDT on another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:****
>
>    - Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;****
>    - The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its
>    mission;****
>    - The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;****
>    - The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about
>    ICT regulation and policy;****
>    - Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users
>    around the world, particularly in developing countries;****
>    - The appropriate level of transparency and civil society
>    participation in WTPF and other ITU activities.****
>
> We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these
> topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What
> are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you
> like to see as an outcome? ****
>
> ** **
>
> We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're
> planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the
> various options for civil society and individual participation (see
> attached). Please note that the deadline to apply<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx> to
> attend the WTPF as "public attendant" *12 April.*****
>
> ** **
>
> I look forward to hearing your thoughts!****
>
> ** **
>
> Best, ****
>
> Deborah ****
>
> ** **
>
> -****
>
> Deborah Brown****
>
> Policy Analyst****
>
> Access | AccessNow.org****
>
> E. deborah at accessnow.org****
>
> @deblebrown****
>
> PGP 0x5EB4727D****
>



-- 
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
E. deborah at accessnow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/82d0d9d9/attachment.htm>

From gurstein at gmail.com  Thu Apr 11 15:18:00 2013
From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 12:18:00 -0700
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch
In-Reply-To: <CALU7RQYgcp0Zqzh2sz8BBUO0_UU=opyuGK3koyKPdn0vnNOc4Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <list-2934675@studio405.com>	<CALU7RQbebkNhyn7kxjNz_spsPv=ooK5+czsFnWOqSUWY4SzXQA@mail.gmail.com>	<012901ce36df$cc12bcb0$64383610$@gmail.com> <CALU7RQYgcp0Zqzh2sz8BBUO0_UU=opyuGK3koyKPdn0vnNOc4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005501ce36e9$52466cb0$f6d34610$@gmail.com>

Thanks very much Deborah, that helps a lot.

 

Best,

 

M

 

From: Deborah Brown [mailto:deborah at accessnow.org] 
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:09 PM
To: michael gurstein
Cc: bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org
Subject: Re: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

 

Hi Michael, 

 

Thank you for your email. See my responses below.

 

Best, 

Deborah 

 

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks Deborah,

 

A couple of things. It would help a lot if you were to provide links to the
"Secretary General's report and draft opinions" to which you are referring.

 

The Secretary General's report and draft opinions are hyperlinked in the
introductory paragraph, but in case the links didn't come through here they
are:

 

Secretary General's report: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13-C-0003/en

All draft opinions: http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Pages/opinions.aspx

 

.         Opinion 1- Promoting Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) as a long
term solution to advance connectivity:
http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0047/en

.         Opinion 2- Fostering an enabling environment for the greater
growth and development of broadband connectivity:
http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0043/en

.         Opinion 3- Supporting Capacity Building for the deployment of
IPv6: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0046/en

.         Opinion 4- In support of IPv6 Adoption and Transition from IPv4:
http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0045/en 

.         Opinion 5- Supporting Multi-stakeholderism in Internet Governance:
http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0042/en 

.         Opinion 6- On supporting operationalizing the Enhanced Cooperation
Process: http://www.itu.int/md/S13-WTPF13IEG3-C-0044/en 

Also, in the draft document it is not clear to me at least how your document
flows i.e. what is your opinion/analysis and what is the nature of the
materials/on which documents is your opinion is being based.

 

The document introduces an issue, then pulls text from the SG's report as
examples of the issues. The numbers preceding the quoted text indicate the
section of the SG's report it is pulled from. Does that make sense?
Apologies if that was not clear before.

 

Please remember that this is only a part-time and voluntary activity for
many of us.

 

Tks,

 

Mike

 

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org
[mailto:bestbits-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Deborah Brown
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:38 AM
To: <bestbits at lists.igcaucus.org>
Subject: [bestbits] WTPF participation and issues to watch

 

Hi all,

 

As you're all probably aware, the World Telecommunication Policy Forum is
coming up on May 14-16.  To help kick-start a discussion about the topics at
WTPF, Access and CDT wrote up a short document (attached) identifying some
of of the key issues that come up in the Secretary General's report and
draft opinions. You may have received a similar note from Emily from CDT on
another list.  We expect a lot of discussion around:

*	Enhanced cooperation and multistakeholderism;
*	The role of the ITU in Internet governance and the scope of its
mission;
*	The concept of end-to-end Quality of Service;
*	The importance of human rights in the context of discussions about
ICT regulation and policy;
*	Strategies for increasing affordable Internet access for users
around the world, particularly in developing countries;
*	The appropriate level of transparency and civil society
participation in WTPF and other ITU activities.

We're interested to hear what you think, both about our analysis of these
topics and what your perspective is on key issues we didn't mention. What
are your "top five" important issues coming into WTPF, and what would you
like to see as an outcome? 

 

We're also curious about who will be participating in WTPF, and how you're
planning to get involved.  We also put together a document about the various
options for civil society and individual participation (see attached).
Please note that the deadline to apply
<http://www.itu.int/en/wtpf-13/Documents/expression-of-interest.docx>  to
attend the WTPF as "public attendant" 12 April.

 

I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

 

Best, 

Deborah 

 

-

Deborah Brown

Policy Analyst

Access | AccessNow.org

E.  <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org> deborah at accessnow.org

@deblebrown

PGP 0x5EB4727D





 

-- 

Deborah Brown

Policy Analyst

Access | AccessNow.org

E.  <mailto:deborah at accessnow.org> deborah at accessnow.org

@deblebrown

PGP 0x5EB4727D

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130411/91b8d682/attachment.htm>

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Apr 12 04:06:08 2013
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 16:06:08 +0800
Subject: [bestbits] New Best Bits list to work towards shared position on
 evolution of IG arrangements
Message-ID: <5167C070.1060303@ciroap.org>

As we get closer to "relaunching" Best Bits for 2013 with a new website
and some new faces, it's time to get down to one of the main orders of
business for this year: the positive agenda for the evolution of
Internet governance arrangements.  (If you need a refresher on this
year's agenda, check  the list archive at
http://lists.igcaucus.org/arc/bestbits/2013-03/msg00005.html.)

As you know, an Enhanced Cooperation Working Group of the UN CSTD is
tasked with making recommendations about potential improvements to the
status quo, and it is important that this doesn't become an excuse for
the introduction of an ITU-style intergovernmental mechanism.  At the
other extreme, a stick-in-the-mud approach that protects incumbent
vested interests would be equally harmful, and there was some agreement
at our last workshop that civil society can do better than that.

At the October 2013 Best Bits meeting in Bali that we plan to hold ahead
of the IGF (thanks APC), one of our objectives will be to reach
agreement amongst as many as possible of the participants on a positive
model (or models) for evolution of existing arrangements, so that the
civil society representatives in CSTD Working Group can advocate more
strongly for such a model than if we had not spent the time to develop
such a shared position (which, make no mistake, the other stakeholder
groups *will* have done).

We are really very privileged that all but one (so far) of the civil
society representatives in the CSTD Working Group have agreed to
participate in this discussion with Best Bits members, forming a little
informal working group for discussion.  For now a separate mailing list
has been set up for this discussion, though if enough people feel
strongly that the discussion should take place on the main Best Bits
list, we can consider rolling the lists together later.

Join this working group, click "Subscribe" on this page:

http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/ec

Whilst this is certainly not meant as an exclusive place for discussion,
the "value add" intended to be provided is that it will be reasonably
tightly focussed on the end goal of developing a concrete proposal (or
proposals) for the larger group to discuss, and which will assist the
civil society representatives at the CSTD in making the case that there
is at least one model of evolutionary change that enjoys fairly broad
support from civil society.

Since the legitimacy of our proposal depends on the inclusiveness of the
exercise (which is and always has been a top priority for the Best Bits
network), feel free to cc this invitation to other civil society lists
that may also be interested in getting involved (I've added the IGC
governance list above already).  For those who are not already members
of the *main* Best Bits list, you should also join that: you can do by
hitting "Subscribe" at a different address,
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/bestbits.

We are also planning to call soon for volunteers for a lightweight Best
Bits steering group with balanced representation from all regions.  But
I will leave Andrew to tell more about this in a separate message.  I
will also have news soon about fundraising for travel funds, that will
allow a good number of you to participate in Bali if you would otherwise
have difficulty in doing so.  And of course, the new website and
calendar coming soon!  It will be an exciting and important year.

-- 

*Dr Jeremy Malcolm
Senior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers*
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 7726 1599

WCRD 2013 -- Consumer Justice Now! | Consumer Protection Map:
https://wcrd2013.crowdmap.com/main | #wcrd2013

@Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org
<http://www.consumersinternational.org> |
www.facebook.com/consumersinternational
<http://www.facebook.com/consumersinternational>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/email-confidentiality>. Don't
print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20130412/feec2dd4/attachment.htm>